Well, with due respect, it certainly isn't acceptable to me. It makes many unfounded assumptions and outright spurious conclusions. For example:
"The widespread nature of flood traditions throughout the entire human race is excellent evidence for the existence of a great flood from a legal/historical point of view."
Simply put: no it is not. It is excellent evidence of the existence of floods. Flooding occurs in lots of areas of the world - many populated areas on the planet have flooded on a yearly basis for many, many years. The prevalence of flood stories and myths also makes no sense of the Genesis account, which states clearly that all but Noah's family were killed by the flood, so how did so many cultures and civilizations survive to write and speak about it? There are no reputable historians who consider the prevalence of flood myths as any kind of evidence of a global flood, and no such evidence for a global flood currently exists.
"However, the probability exists that the Biblical account had been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from Noah, through the patriarchs and eventually to Moses, thereby making it actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were restatements (with alterations) to the original."
This is no different to saying "The probability exists that the recipe for the grilled cheese sandwich has been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from the very first literate hominids and eventually to modern chefs, thereby making it actually older than any other recipe on the planet". It's basically just making baseless assumptions, ignoring the simple fact that the Sumerian accounts pre-date the earliest Hebrew accounts. I have seen you dismiss scientists for using indefinite language, so why is this statement that "the probability exists" acceptable to you?
"The most accepted theory among evangelicals is that both have one common source, predating all the Sumerian forms. The divine inspiration of the Bible would demand that the Genesis account is the correct version."
This is merely affirming the consequent. Assuming a source is true, and thus assuming that reality must fit it. This is not good history, and it is not acceptable logic.
"The Book of Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological."
This is, again, simply not true and yet another form of logical fallacy. The Book of Genesis is looked at largely as a historical text only in the sense that it describes particular beliefs and cultures of the time - that doesn't mean everything contained therein is regarded as historical fact. There is absolutely no historical or scientific evidence to support a global flood, a young earth, or the garden of eden. These things are categorically not regarded as historical facts, so to say the Book of Genesis is regarded wholly as a historical text is misleading at best and outright dishonest at worst.
"To those who believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, it should not be a surprise that God would preserve the true account of the Flood in the traditions of His people. The Genesis account was kept pure and accurate throughout the centuries by the providence of God until it was finally compiled, edited, and written down by Moses. The Epic of Gilgamesh, then, contains the corrupted account as preserved and embellished by peoples who did not follow the God of the Hebrews."
This is yet more spurious assumption with no reference to any kind of historical or scientific facts. It is simply circular reasoning: assuming the Bible is true because the Bible must be true. Surely you see the inherent fallacy in formulating your conclusion BEFORE investigating the facts, and yet it states quite clearly in this article - and in the Institution's own statement of faith - that their assumptions and conclusions are already predetermined. Do you honestly believe the ICR leave even the possibility of the Bible NOT being infallible, or even simply being inaccurate or wrong in any way, open in their attempt to "seek the truth"? If your answer is no, then they are not a reliable or acceptable source of any kind of historical or scientific information or opinion.
Thank you for that response. It demonstrates exactly what I have been saying all along in the 'Creation verses Evolution' threads. The fact that you do not give the same scrutiny to evolution that you do to things that challenge it is revealing.
When we demand "evidence" for something, should we not demand equal evidence from both sides of an issue?
When that substantiated "evidence" cannot be produced, that is when "belief" comes into play. The "proofs" then become what the supporters of each side "want to believe" based on other aspects like logic and deduction, then each will point to the reasons why they adhere to their chosen position....each as passionate about their stance as the other. Bias is expressed by both sides, so the pot accusing the kettle as if they have dibs on truth is a little pointless.
Evolution is touted as non negotiable truth....but we all know that it is subject to interpretation, just like the Bible is. Therefore we chose our position for our own reasons. They are deeper than most people imagine and tell a lot about what is in the hearts of humans....what motivates their "beliefs".
The pictorial situation you posted is amusing but not factual. You see, the trees are and the water and other parts of the picture are not denied...they just have a different explanation...equally "factual" to those with an opposing view.
Does it really matter in the final analysis, what people "believe".....whether they have real "evidence" or not?
Bottom line....we all get what we ask for at the end of the day. Those who do not believe in a Creator God who has an eternal purpose for his creation, have no hope of life beyond this one.....they will get what they ask for.....nothing beyond this life. (2 Thess 1:7-9)
For those who do express belief in a Creator God and yet deny him in their beliefs and actions...these too will get what they ask for....judgment and denial of entry into God's kingdom as law breakers. (Matt 7:21-23)
And those who take the Creator at his word and try to the best of their ability to support his side of the Edenic issue...that of the Creator's right to set reasonable limits within the exercise of free will for humankind....these obedient ones who "do the will of the Father" will get what they ask for too....everlasting life in the same conditions that Adam was given at the start, but lost for all his children. (Rev 21:2-5)
Unending life in paradise surroundings is programmed into us. Death is not natural for humankind even though it is all we have ever known. Collectively, we have a natural desire to go on living, so when death takes our loved ones, many had the desire to invent somewhere for them to go after death.....this is pure denial that death is actually the cessation of life. (Gen 3:19) So belief in an afterlife of some description permeates most religious cultures......and yet the notion of an invisible part of man continuing to live on after death is not taught in the Bible. (Eccl 9:5, 10)
Worshippers of the Creator know that he has a purpose for everything he does.....we are 'made in his image' so we too are beings who exhibit purpose in our activities, though the motives for many of them are often selfish.
If people are satisfied with their position and what it means for their future, then why all the arguments?
All we have to do is state our case and allow the hearers to respond as they will. But in stating our case, all we can do is tell the truth as we understand it.....the rest is up to those who are seekers to make up their own minds about it. We have already made up ours...each as passionate about our position as the other.
