"Now, Sky, you might not accept this as accurate but if not, can you provide empirical evidence that it is not accurate and that any other creation story is more accurate?"
I admire that it and others are similar to the one I hold as most accurate. But that particular story is not enclosed in a book of historical, factual events, people, places, and time lines. See more @ http://www.bib-arch.org/
"You said you had proof that scientific research was driven by the desires of man, rather than the interest in scientific discovery. Where is the proof? You made a baseless assertion: back it up."
Well, this is private proof, but we'll see. If I say that it's proven that Greenland average temperatures could rise by 5Centigrade in 10 years, would you proclaim it to the world, or sweep it under the rug? (Melting not caused by CO2.)
The scientific community has swept it under the rug as "An Inconvenient Truth"
It's "PROOF" fro me that science could care less about the facts if they conflict with a predisposed idea.
10 days ago this fact had FOUR results in a google search. All from one website. I spread the word a little, and now science is peeking out from under the snowball with 80 results. You likely don't care about the global warming muck...but it's valid proof to me. "Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings. A temperature increase of 5C can occur in a few decades. "
Also note the scientific term "Especially astonishing." Sagan used that term around the Hookah pipe a lot.
Man is the only form of life in the entire Cosmos. And you know this, how?
Science Dude, Scientific evidence. All here, none found there.
Science hard Fact.
Scoop shovels of soil, radio waves, visible monitoring, every possible known scientific method of observation we can come up with. Robots even.
Zero, Zilch, Nada. Even our fiction is hokey. Green men with huge heads. With all this raw material at our disposal, we can't come up with anything new. We can only stick working stuff together like Mr. Potato head clones.
"So, if you had to make these assumptions, what reasons do you see for the Creator to choose gradual naturalistic processes, as opposed to an undeniably divine creation event?"
If God is doing the choosing, then both are undeniably divine creation events. That was easy & fun.
Unless God just happened along, which wasn't part of your setup.
The Gradual process is the one where magma cools at a suitable rate, so as not to explode as if a molten planet was dunked in water. Also some process was needed for creating dirt. And ground stone for body and organics for water retention. Good soil takes some amount of time.
How much "time" it took for all this time to pass is up for debate.
How much "time" did it take for The cure of two blind men The deaf and dumb man The blind man of Bethsaida The raising of the widow's son at Nain The man with the dropsy The ten lepers The healing of Malchus Water made wine Impotent man at Bethsaida cured Man born blind curedLazarus raised from the dead Syrophoenician woman's daughter cured
These things take time to heal. How much time? Go Figure.
See.....this is the ONLY point at which we differ. The rest, we fully agree on. I even get my data from "your" team. It makes more sense from my view. The other side goes against the laws of physics. Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system.
Are you saying you agree god might work in naturalistic processes or not?
They are HIS processes either way ya look at it. The only question being, did this time take place over what we call billions of years, or did this massive amount of time all get squeezed into one miraculous event? If the miracles of the new testament happened instantly, then the same is likely true of Genesis.
If my pal Jesus causes lame man to suddenly get up and walk, who cares if a team of Doctors with a CAT scan decide the mans bones have been healed for months? They aren't WRONG about the science. I saw the man healed. My viewpoint is different from theirs.
But please explain, how would the miracles in the new testament prove that genesis was also LIKELY to be instantaneous? That is a big jump.
1. It is said that Jesus is the Creator, so He was responsible for both events. Nothing is written that suggests slow gradual naturalistic processes have any value. In fact Jesus "fought" against these processes at every opportunity. His actions opposed many "Natural" events. Storms, aging, disease, and in the end, he even cried out to the Father that he didn't want to participate in the Death "thing" ......if it could be avoided.
2. The study of the creation story translation can be summarized with "When the word "day" is used with a specific number, it always has reference to a normal day."
This means that the jump is not big. With apologies to Science-Fiction-ists, The Creation Days are more likely to be acts of Special Creation, and less likely to be Some-Million-Year days.
We are insignificant in the vast size of the cosmos, and likewise we are insignificant in the vast history of the cosmos.
This is entirely opposite of God's message to us, so the source of that thinking is from......another place.
And supposing it were true. What advantage would the species gain from thinking it was insignificant? So it's actually in opposition to the Evolution God's message as well. The Evolution God may well chalk you up as a weak minded mud worm and send in somebody with an ounce of Machismo and lop off your head and move into your house.
It may be that Sagan himself was feeling insignificant in the vast history of the cosmos. His mother was a street smart shrew that stole other girls boyfriends "just to prove she could do it." And his Father was an usher in a movie theater.
But then Jesus was born in a cattle stall so I guess humble beginnings aren't the worst thing.