Whose assumptions are best or least well proven?

1) Creation vs Evolution : Heard of Libby Anne? , 2) Did Libby Anne misunderstand at least Something about Young Earth Creationism? Or: Why don't they teach logic in these schools?! 3) Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue" 4) Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James? 5) Whose assumptions are best or least well proven? 6) Somewhere else : Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others? 7) Great Bishop of Geneva! : How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from? 8) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... to Hitchens on Revelation, Decalogue and Evidence for Moses. 9) Correspondence de / of / van Hans-Georg Lundahl : Notifying Craig A. James of a refutation of his refutation ...

List of "unproven assumptions" of Georgia Purdom's (PhD Molecular Biology) position, according to an Atheist critic:*


1) God exists
2) Communication between God and man can occur
3) Such communication has occurred

Your "honour," number 3 is not an assumption, it is historically proven fact and in itself alone proves the other two "unproven assumptions". God's existence would also be very much proven by the fact we have a world unless it were for modern fake science trying to reinterpret the evidence to fit it into an atheistic paradigm. But there is also the evidence from Communication between God and Moses, and from God becoming Man in Bethlehem.

4) God is trustworthy

Considering what He has done, He is. Creating the world, helping Noah's family survive, helping Israelistes out of Egypt, rising from the grave on the Third Day according to Scripture and exposing Old Testament typology for it during forty days to the Apostles all show Him as trustworthy.

Not so with Pagan gods or with the Quranic revelation.

5) That communication occurred with the person(s) writing Genesis.

Moses could not have taken Israel out of Egypt without God. And we have no other traditional authorship for it than Moses.

6) The communication was recorded accurately.

God's responsibility not to waste it on someone who would blast the thing to pieces by inaccuracy. No inaccuracy imaginable about recording could account for mistaking in those cases what was no divine revelation for one.

7) To this day the account remains accurate.

Same response. Both about God's responsibility and this that no inaccuracy imaginable about transmission (in such a well recorded transmission as the Hebrew and Christian one) could account for mistaking in those cases what was no divine revelation for one.

He - the Atheist - then takes the step to impugn St Mark as we have it. He claims Gospel of St Mark was after a few decades contaminated with 12 extra verses.

It is far more probable that the Mark manuscript without them was made for and by unbelievers who did not want the resurrection account.

Like Jews. Laying out evidence about what Christians believed before someone who had already decided that Resurrection is wrong anyway. But who wanted to know details before passing some kind of judgement on the Christians.

You see, there is no ancient Christian community that tells us these 12 verses do not belong there. It is only a modern scholar presuming from one chance manuscript without it being perhaps very little older that they should not be there.

His next question is a bit idiotic.

Assuming the 7 well evidenced so called assumptions, it is obvious that the observation behind certain facts in the Genesis account is God's and not men's.

Furthermore the Atheist claims the Universe looks millions of years older than the Biblical timescale, but that is assuming a lot of unproven assumptions on part of the Atheist.

He might feel he needs no proof as we do, because his assumptions are Atheist and thus "make no remarcable claim."

The remarcable positive claim in these is being able to reconstruct accurately ages never observed by human eyes or processes that happened before there was any rational observer at all on the Atheist view.

And Atheism has no proof for it.

Georgia Purdom's point about Here and Now Science is perfectly clear and consistent. Except insofar as she stamps astronomy as a here-science by stamping it as a here-and-now-science. It is not. Planar astronomy is a science about how stars and heavenly bodies look from either here or close to here. With "star vault" conveniently represented as inner plane of a globe, hence name, whether it is or not.

"Physical astronomy" is in some ways as reconstructive and indirect about the evidence as Paleosciences are. Which is why I reject as unfounded its Heliocentric and even Acentric-Relativistic conclusions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Dionysius of the Areopagus
Bishop of Paris

PS, he also takes her to task for saying there is no observed mechanism for adding new information. He claims bacteria have been found able to digest materials previous samples of culture could not digest. Problem with this claim is we who are not Molecular Biologists as she is would not know if this is from added genetic information or from loss of genetic information that discriminated against a food source. I was at a talk from a French Evolutionist. He claimed tehre was an island where flies live without wings. I asked whethere there was one were snails grew wings. He had the clarity to take that is a joke. Flies loosing wings is loss of genetic information. Snails gaining them is gain of genetic information. And you see which one of them is the joke.

*All seven taken from the video:

JacobBe5 : Creationists failing at attacking Bill Nye
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwcnV-d-M4

It quotes small snippets of this one, where I found no Protestant errors and some pretty good sense:

creationmuseum : Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA