|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2007 20:00:38 GMT -8
Originally posted 4/3/06: First off, I must emphasize that I don't think the book of Genesis is meant to be a science textbook, or for that matter a history textbook, in the modern sense. Clearly, Genesis refers to historical events, but equally apparent, I think, is it's mythological nature. The dividing line between myth and historical fact is sometimes clear, but often they are interwoven and inseparable. I'm still learning about that. That being said, one fascinating thing about the Creation account of Genesis is how the days of Creation do fit with much of what we know about the earth's early history. Let me give you an orderly account of what I mean. Each creation day (with a short summary) will be followed by what scientists currently think the successive stages of the early universe/ early earth were. Keep in mind that each day is viewed from the perspective on an observer standing on the surface of the earth. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1 This includes stars, planets, galaxies This first verse of the bible demonstrates that God is independent even of the heavens and that the universe had a beginning Darkness and water over the surface of the earth: The early earth was covered with water and no light was visible for an extended period of time due to the interstellar dust that actually formed our planet, or due to the dust in the atmosphere after the moon's collision with earth (the current theory on where we got our moon). Day 1 "Let there be light" At about 4.5 billion years ago, the atmosphere would have became translucent: clear enough for light to penetrate, but not yet be transparent. Day 2 An expanse between the waters below (seas) and waters above (clouds) About 4 billion years ago, we had the beginning of a stable water cycle and the creation of the troposphere, an atmospheric layer above the oceans where clouds form and humidity resides Day 3 Dry land and Plants About 2.5- 3 billion years ago plate tectonics and volcanism forms our first continent (probably Pangea). About (less certain) 1-2 billion years ago, plants most likely appear. Plants this old are difficult to fossilize, but we have evidence of a sudden increase in oxygen at this time; an indication that plant life exploded during this time period. This day is just the beginning of the creation of plants; they continue to appear in new species until the advent of man. Day 4 The appearance of the sun, moon, and stars. Genesis 1:1 already spoke of these things being created (the heavens). The Hebrew word here is different than the word used elsewhere indicating create (bara), it instead is (asah) which can be translated, brought forth or presented At some point (possibly 1 billion years ago), the atmosphere would become transparent, allowing the sun, moons, and stars, to be seen as we see them, for the first time. Day 5 Aquatic life forms and "winged creatures" About 500-600 million years ago, we see an explosion of aquatic life and insects, which is all this text requires. This day is just the beginning of the creation of sea creatures; they also continue to appear in new species until the advent of man. True birds follow later. Day 6 Reptiles, then Mammals, then Man About 230 million years ago we get dinosaurs, about 65 million years ago most mammals. About 2-3 million years ago, the first tool using bipedal primates. About 50,000-100,000 years ago, the advent of homo sapiens. Day 7 God rests from his creative work No new species since man Each day of creation inaugurates a new kind of creative work. The culmination of the creative work is man. Now, I challenge you to take any other ancient creation "myth" (Mesopotamian, Greek, Egyptian, Mayan), and find this kind of harmony! This is not to say that those myths don't also contain historical memory and kernels of truth (because many of them certainly do), but it does seem that the Biblical record here gives us a most amazing harmony with science. A Creation Chronology: www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 7, 2008 15:06:27 GMT -8
Mo wrote:
Hopefully you remember that I haven't just ignored challenges like this. In fact, I know you've read my response to this, though I recall you dismissing it as Hebrew word-play. But I want to challenge you on that. Words have multiple meanings. You can't read a translation without taking this into account. All this doesn't mean that a person can reasonably make a text say anything they want to. They just have to work within the reasonable bounds of what a word can mean according to the consensus of experts in a language.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 7, 2008 15:08:09 GMT -8
mo wrote:
Mo, gotta leave for a backpacking trip. I look forward to answering this... and living up to your cariacture.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 8, 2008 1:33:51 GMT -8
mo wrote: Mo, gotta leave for a backpacking trip. I look forward to answering this... and living up to your cariacture. can't wait*... *(irony) |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 12, 2008 15:30:34 GMT -8
According to the interpretation I'm arguing for, something was "created" on day 4- the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars for the first time on planet earth. That's a big new event. Since Genesis 1 has already said by this point that both light and the heavens and the earth have been created, there is a precedent for these things being "revealed" on the 4th day. Furthermore, a look at various ways to interpret the Hebrew in Genesis 1 reveals an additional point. Here's the standard rendering of Genesis 1:14-19. Genesis 1:14-19 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. Here is an alternate, equally possible rendering: 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God had made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also had made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. According to this rendering, verse 16 would be a parenthetical explanation of where the sun, moon, and stars originally came from. BTW, not only is this rendering possible, but the NIV chooses to render identical verbage this way elsewhere in the OT where it is clearer that the sense is past tense. For one source of this argumentation: books.google.com/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=arguments+in+favor+of+day+age+view&source=web&ots=hBRGB7Q5NZ&sig=ZPDo_J22TWblgJw6LIAr6r8_FiA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA300,M1 The revelant section starts at the second paragraph "but a modification".... Evening and morning can be seen as the beginning or closing of an age. Again, even in today's language we use the word "day" for "long period of time" quite frequently. Likewise, we liken things like "childhood" to "morning" and the end of our lives to "evening". I am also told, but need to verify this, that in Hebrew, which has a very small total vocabulary, "yom" is really the best choice of wording if one wants to indicate an age. Anyone have input on this? No, in the text the universe is the very first thing to be created (Genesis 1:1). It is only after light is said to be visible on earth that there is talk of days and nights. Ancient Hebrews and others considered there to be 3 "heavens"- the first the sky, the second the place where the celestial bodies resided, and the third the abode of God/ the spiritual realm. Lastly, I want to say that though I think this is interesting and important to discuss, again, the heart of the Christian faith rests in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. One could see Genesis 1 and 2 as largely symbolic and still be convinced on the foundational essentials of the faith. In other words, I think it's important, I think the view I'm expounding gives positive evidence for the truth of the Judeo-Christian worldview*, but this is not a make it or break it issue. *I note you pointed out the few apparent discrepancies between the scientific record and the biblical record of creation without so much as giving a nod to the amazing similarities between the two- similarities not apparent to nearly this degree in other ancient creation narratives. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 13, 2008 1:51:59 GMT -8
According to the interpretation I'm arguing for, something was "created" on day 4- the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars for the first time on planet earth. That's a big new event. Since Genesis 1 has already said by this point that both light and the heavens and the earth have been created, there is a precedent for these things being "revealed" on the 4th day. Josh, this is a hopeless stretch. 1. The word “creation” equals neither “appearance” nor “revelation”. To create something is fundamentally different from “showing something”. 2. If you want to redefine the word “creation” and make it more blurry, there is still the context of the other creation days (or ages) which tells us that God on every day (or age) brought something new into existence. I think there’s no getting around that. Evening and morning can be seen as the beginning or closing of an age. Again, even in today's language we use the word "day" for "long period of time" quite frequently. Likewise, we liken things like "childhood" to "morning" and the end of our lives to "evening". Maybe in English. In German certainly not. You can use such metaphors in poetry but nobody would refer to an age as a day in normal speech and especially not in a precise claim about the truth. Unless he explicitly wants this claim to be imprecise and interpretable in multiple ways and hence to be unfalsifiable. I think it’s a huge stretch again. If you like to interpret scripture that way, I’ll do it too. From now on “Son of God”, or “Messiah” is to be read as “good, righteous person”. “Physical resurrection” is to be read as “resurrection within our hearts”, whenever somebody claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes he refers to his "inner eyes". If somebody claims to have touched Jesus with his hands he actually means he has touched Jesus with his "heart". And so on and so on and so on. I think we’ve had this before. Josh, bring me whatever you like from the bible and I’ll find a way to interpret it in metaphorical or other poetical ways. No, in the text the universe is the very first thing to be created (Genesis 1:1). The Online Bibles I’ve checked unanimously speak of God creating the SKY and the earth. Now, I know you’ve said…: Ancient Hebrews and others considered there to be 3 "heavens"- the first the sky, the second the place where the celestial bodies resided, and the third the abode of God/ the spiritual realm. …BUT: I don’t think that any author in his right mind would use the same term for two different things within one document. Especially if it’s a document of only one or two pages. I’m sure there would be a way to dissociate the different concepts of the same term and be more precise even in Hebrew with its “small total vocabulary”. Lastly, I want to say that though I think this is interested and important to discuss, again, the heart of the Christian faith rests in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To me, as I pointed out, the resurrection is just symbolic  In other words, I think it's important, I think the view I'm expounding gives positive evidence for the truth of the Judeo-Christian worldview* To me, the view you’re expounding only gives evidence for the full dimension of contortion Christian apologists use in their desperate attempts to make even the most unfitting fit. I wonder how you would estimate this whole business if it was a Hindu who would use such stretches and translation issues in order to overcome the flaws of the Hindu creation story. And as you know, there are people who believe the bible is to be taken literally (such as Chris). Those people base further opinions and views on this premise. Hence, I think it is very important to sort this thing out. We have to decide whether we take it literally or not because this has consequences. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then EVERYTHING must fit without stretches. To prove the Bible wrong in only one single thing would confute further views*. If the bible isn’t to be taken entirely literally, we must work out which parts are and which parts aren’t. Cause this opens up the gate for symbolic interpretation. *this doesn't mean ALL further views. *I note you pointed out the few apparent discrepancies between the scientific record and the biblical record of creation without so much as giving a nod to the amazing similarities between the two- similarities not apparent to nearly this degree in other ancient creation narratives. Josh, there is so much more one could point out to further demonstrate clashes between Genesis claims and science. It’s not as if there were only the few points I mentioned. For example the creation of Adam and Eve vs. evolution, or your statement that there was no species after mankind vs. all the species that have been discovered since the beginning of record keeping. The imperfection of the supposed perfectly designed creation. Etc. etc. etc. What do you want me to acclaim? That there are supposed similarities between Genesis and the scientific record among all the discrepancies? I’m not saddle-fast enough with the scientific record to confirm that the supposed similarities indeed are similarities. What I can see at first glance though is that you only took very general information of the scientific record for your conclusion. Gee, how am I gonna explain what I mean? Let me try it like this: You take the biblical claim that sea animals were the first to be created and compare this to the evolutionary statement that all life evolved from the seas. Yet, you don’t accept the theory of evolution as the cause. So you grab one statement of a theory you don't even go along with, pull it out of context, compare it to Genesis and conclude that it fits. That’s not the way, brother. And about creation stories of other religions: I hardly know any. But I’m sure the apologists of such religions are just as clever in finding metaphorical interpretations for their stories and stretching them beyond recognition as you are. And if they are not, they’ll say their creation accounts are not essential – just like you. This discussion could go much deeper. But I think the points we dealt with are enough to discredit Genesis. You won’t agree. But it should be obvious for anybody who isn’t particularly interested in keeping up the reliability of the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 13, 2008 9:03:03 GMT -8
Mo, There's a lot here and I'm getting ready to leave for the beach. For now, though, I'd like to focus on your objections to things I've said about the Hebrew. For instance, asah being translated as appoint, ordain, institute or yom being translated indefinite time period aren't just stretches that people in favor of this viewpoint invented. These definitions are listed in Hebrew lexicons and are agreed upon possible definitions of these words. What's being debated here is whether these defintions fit in this text, not whether these words can mean these things. Can I get some agreement on this? You can look up 'yowm' and 'asah' on an online lexicon. For example: bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/Furthermore, there's another thread that deals specifically with the Yom (yowm) issue. There I brought forward this point, which I believe mitigates against your argument that redefining the word yowm is a modern (and hopeless) attempt to reconcile science with the bible: It is sometimes suggested that this interpretation of yom is a modern attempt to reconcile Genesis with science by stretching the account out of its context or obvious meaning. However, this day/age theory is not something new designed to defend against scientific attacks on Scripture; some early church fathers and early rabbis interpreted the days in genesis to be long periods of time. I then listed numerous quotes by early rabbis and bible commentators in support of this (second thread) Here's the link to that full discussion, in which you'll find consideration of objections from both Michelle and Robin: The Yom Controversy
Lastly, and this is a much bigger discussion: one cannot approach the Bible with the forgone conclusion that it must all be taken literally or symbolically. It must be taken in the sense that it's authors intended. There are methods of interpretation that help us get closer to this- methods that are used for all kinds of literature. These are the principles known as "hermenuetics". Some passages in Scripture are known by almost everyone to have been intended to be symbolic- others literal-- but then there are ones where it's not obviously clear what the author intended. Those tend to be the ones that generate the most conversation. Still, we can apply reason to ascertain to the best of our ability how the author might have intended his words to be read. There's already a thread started on that if you want to go more into that (which could be quite beneficial). Here it is: Reading the Bible literally or figuratively?PS: oh, and interesting point about the author of Genesis use of the word "heavens". I've never thought about that. I'll chew on that more. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 13, 2008 20:11:38 GMT -8
One interjection here: Mo wrote: Actually, you have no idea how I interpret the bible. It's folly to try to pigeon hole people on biblical interpretation, don't you think? ...especially with someone who is undecided on so many topics (like myself). But just for your information, I do take the sensus literalis approach...which is pretty much what Josh said here: Personally, I don't see any reason to insist that the "days" in Genesis are distinct time periods at all (though they may be). If Moses wrote Genesis (and I have no reason to doubt he did), why couldn't he simply be using the 7 day framework to poetically express that God creating everything....perfectly and completely? The number 7 is the number of perfection or completion after all. Anyway, I don't want to hijack you guys' thread, just wanted to clarify my herms since my name was brought into it. I'm enjoying reading the exchanges here.  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 14, 2008 0:03:08 GMT -8
One interjection here: Mo wrote: Actually, you have no idea how I interpret the bible. It's folly to try to pigeon hole people on biblical interpretation, don't you think? ...especially with someone who is undecided on so many topics (like myself). But just for your information, I do take the sensus literalis approach...which is pretty much what Josh said here: Chris, you are confusing me. Here are two quotes of yours from other threads: “I believe the bible (in original form) to absolutely true, all the way throughout.” in: God’s personality, page 2, reply #24“(…) and if Genesis is to be taken literal, and is true, then it hasn’t “always” been there.” in: The Road to Healing, page 3, reply #44I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. You used the literal truth of Genesis for your argumentation against me and you pointed out that you believe in the complete truth of the bible "all the way throughout". I think you gave me reason to believe you take the bible literally. I even mocked you on this trying to get a disclaimer but you didn't disclaim it. Until now. Again, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. But maybe you should be more careful with your choice of words too. I'm not a native speaker, you know? Me be stupid foreigner. Now, just to get everything straight: You don't think the bible has to be taken entirely literally, right? You think that the authors might have used poetical symbolism in order to describe the truth. Like the 7 days of the creation. By the way, the creation isn't perfect. This reminds me of a video I've seen a while ago. Let me see if I'll find it. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 14, 2008 1:00:14 GMT -8
Mo, There's a lot here and I'm getting ready to leave for the beach. For now, though, I'd like to focus on your objections to things I've said about the Hebrew. For instance, asah being translated as appoint, ordain, institute or yom being translated indefinite time period aren't just stretches that people in favor of this viewpoint invented. These definitions are listed in Hebrew lexicons and are agreed upon possible definitions of these words. What's being debated here is whether these defintions fit in this text, not whether these words can mean these things. Can I get some agreement on this? You can look up 'yowm' and 'asah' on an online lexicon. For example: bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/Furthermore, there's another thread that deals specifically with the Yom (yowm) issue. There I brought forward this point, which I believe mitigates against your argument that redefining the word yowm is a modern (and hopeless) attempt to reconcile science with the bible: It is sometimes suggested that this interpretation of yom is a modern attempt to reconcile Genesis with science by stretching the account out of its context or obvious meaning. However, this day/age theory is not something new designed to defend against scientific attacks on Scripture; some early church fathers and early rabbis interpreted the days in genesis to be long periods of time. I then listed numerous quotes by early rabbis and bible commentators in support of this (second thread) Here's the link to that full discussion, in which you'll find consideration of objections from both Michelle and Robin: The Yom Controversy
Lastly, and this is a much bigger discussion: one cannot approach the Bible with the forgone conclusion that it must all be taken literally or symbolically. It must be taken in the sense that it's authors intended. There are methods of interpretation that help us get closer to this- methods that are used for all kinds of literature. These are the principles known as "hermenuetics". Some passages in Scripture are known by almost everyone to have been intended to be symbolic- others literal-- but then there are ones where it's not obviously clear what the author intended. Those tend to be the ones that generate the most conversation. Still, we can apply reason to ascertain to the best of our ability how the author might have intended his words to be read. There's already a thread started on that if you want to go more into that (which could be quite beneficial). Here it is: Reading the Bible literally or figuratively?Josh, this post is almost completely missing the point. I don't want to repeat it all. Just let me clearify this: 1. I know there are sometimes different meanings for one term. I just don't think that the interpretation you presented fits into the context. I've elaborated why in the posts above. 2. I know the method of hermeneutics. When I said that I'll just take the resurrection symbolically, I was being ironic. I wanted to emphasize the stretch you were doing in my opinion. I'll wait for your full reply now. I think I've said all I had to say about this topic though. So you'll have the last word this time. Unless you want me to keep it up, of course. Or have specific questions. Chris: I don't find the video I refered to anymore. But I've found one that touches the issue of the imperfect creation at 6 Minutes and 52 seconds, only scratching the surface of that topic. The video is a collection of pro-evolutionary scientists arguing against creationism. Note that I'm not selling their opinion as mine. It's interesting to watch though. And note that I agree this video is poorly designed itself, haha! |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 14, 2008 20:34:39 GMT -8
Mo, I can certainly understand your confusion here, but be careful of the trap of over-generalizing. Neither of those statements you listed say that I take all of the bible literally. Anyone who knows me and has discussed theology with me knows that I do not. In statement #1: I meant what I said. But something need not be literal to be absolutely true. For example, if I say it rains cats and dogs in Oregon, I'm making an absolutely true statement that is not expressed literally...no? (more true than I would wish in fact  ) In statement #2: Notice the key word "if" there. That is a simple if/then hypothetic statement that isn't making any absolute claims to what I believe at all. You gotta be careful of us agnostics, we're slippery and hard to pin down at times . But if you must know, I do take the majority of Genesis as literal history. I have no problem with the accounts you might hold as too incredible to be true. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, the flood, and Enoch being taken by God alive because Jesus and the New Testament writers affirm those truths in non-poetic passages. However, I allow room for poetry and symbolism to express and frame those truths to make them more memorable. That is very common in ancient Hebrew lit. But there is much of the bible that I take as absolutely true but almost purely expressed in a non-literal fashion. By the way, there's no need to play the "dumb foreigner" card, nobody here thinks your dumb. You can simply say that you misunderstood and that'll be fine. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 14, 2008 20:57:38 GMT -8
Mo, I'm glad you made this disclaimer: That was one of the worst examples of appealing to authority, alleged certainty, and bandwagon argumentation I think I've ever seen.  . That was obviously a propaganda film aimed at discrediting the ID theory through ridicule. You wrote: How so? I didn't hear anything but assertions and weak examples that God is supposedly a bad engineer. Yet this guy no doubt uses his "poorly designed" eyes and jaw/teeth effortlessly every day. Just absurd. And that says nothing of how the fall may have introduced imperfections in creation (a very common Christian belief). |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 15, 2008 0:35:46 GMT -8
Mo, I can certainly understand your confusion here, but be careful of the trap of over-generalizing. Neither of those statements you listed say that I take all of the bible literally. Anyone who knows me and has discussed theology with me knows that I do not. In statement #1: I meant what I said. But something need not be literal to be absolutely true. For example, if I say it rains cats and dogs in Oregon, I'm making an absolutely true statement that is not expressed literally...no? (more true than I would wish in fact ) In statement #2: Notice the key word "if" there. That is a simple if/then hypothetic statement that isn't making any absolute claims to what I believe at all. You gotta be careful of us agnostics, we're slippery and hard to pin down at times . But if you must know, I do take the majority of Genesis as literal history. I have no problem with the accounts you might hold as too incredible to be true. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, the flood, and Enoch being taken by God alive because Jesus and the New Testament writers affirm those truths in non-poetic passages. However, I allow room for poetry and symbolism to express and frame those truths to make them more memorable. That is very common in ancient Hebrew lit. But there is much of the bible that I take as absolutely true but almost purely expressed in a non-literal fashion. By the way, there's no need to play the "dumb foreigner" card, nobody here thinks your dumb. You can simply say that you misunderstood and that'll be fine. I’m actually pretty smart, you know? Joking aside, I already said that I misunderstood you, so there was no need to write all that. I just wanted to show you where my misunderstanding came from so you wouldn’t think that I was just alleging this out of the blue. Thanks for clarifying your views though. Mo, That was one of the worst examples of appealing to authority, alleged certainty, and bandwagon argumentation I think I've ever seen. . That was obviously a propaganda film aimed at discrediting the ID theory through ridicule. Yeah, I knew you would hate that film and I can see why. I wanted to post another one that deals a bit with the imperfection of the human body and everything. However, I disagree with all of the fallacies you quoted. 1. Nobody said: the expert says so, so it is so. To hear an experts’ opinion on something is pretty reasonable, don’t you think. I hope that all our presidents consult a variety of experts before taking their decisions in complicated matters. Now, before you start again, let me clarify that I’m well aware that this short video is only presenting an ARBITRARY SELECTION of so called experts. But I do find the single positions interesting and worth to give them some thoughts. 2. None of them said that they believe something because many people believe it. I can’t see where you got that from. They pointed out the long and winding road of the scientific process through which every hypothesis must go in order to become a proper theory. I think you were missing the point. 3. None of them said: I say it’s true, hence it’s true. On the contrary. As I said above, they are pointing out the scientific process which lead to the conclusions they believe in. Those conclusions have to be strong enough to endure all kinds of testing. 4. If something is ridiculous then there’s no need to call it any other way. It won’t become more reasonable just because you give it another name, just like something won't become truer just because one is yelling. I’ve noticed before that you are blocking things that put your beliefs into the twilight of ridicule, instead of dealing with the core of the argument or even asking yourself whether your beliefs indeed are ridiculous or not. I guess that’s some kind of defense mechanism: “You are insulting me hence I don’t have to listen or even deal with you!”. Your response to this video, just like your response to Richard Dawkins or several points I’ve made on this board reveals an attitude of evasion: Instead of pointing out where the people in this video were mistaken or even lying, you just dismiss it. You wrote: How so? I didn't hear anything but assertions and weak examples that God is supposedly a bad engineer. Yet this guy no doubt uses his "poorly designed" eyes and jaw/teeth effortlessly every day. Just absurd. Wouldn’t that be “ad absurdum” or “appeal to ridicule”? You are preaching water and drinking wine my friend (as we say where I come from)! And the worst thing is: what this man says isn’t even ridiculous! The human body isn’t perfect. Sure, this will require a definition of perfection. I’ll provide one: Perfection is, broadly, a state of completeness and flawlessness. (Wikipedia). Chris, I hope we don’t have to enumerate all our flaws. The guy you so easily dismissed just gave TWO examples. Maybe you are one of the lucky people who never had to deal with their wisdom teeth. But I perfectly understand what the he is saying. If you want to tell me now that our jaws became smaller because Adam ate the forbidden apple............................................ |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 16, 2008 21:56:46 GMT -8
Mo, I think you may need to watch the video again a little more closely, and with unbiased glasses my friend. I think there is clearly an appeal to authority here with loaded phrases like: “ no debate within the biologist community itself”, and.. “most lay people think scientific theories are guesses and hunches”, etc [my paraphrases]. The video is fraught with those kind of condescending (and false) propaganda statements intended to ridicule anyone who doubts or even questions evolution. Surely you must see that. I’m not going to go back and watch the video again so I can list all the places in the clip that do this for you (I’ve already wasted 10 unrecoverable minutes of my life the first go round  ) I think they’re pretty self-evident. One guy even lamented that the average person on the street aint buyin’ what they’re sellin’ and went so far as to suggest that it’s possibly leading our country to be an oppressive theocracy similar to Iran (appeal to fear). You wrote: Thanks for the free psych eval Mo…I owe you one. The truth is, I feel no need to defend my views against ridicule, why should I? You can call it a defense mechanism if you wish, but I call it good stewardship of my very limited time. I have no fear of subjecting my views to scrutiny, it's why I have these discussions with you and many others. But if someone is not going to lay aside their agenda of winning the debate or trying to sell an ideology and simply discuss truth honestly and without deceptive tactics like the ones seen in that clip, then I consider it to rather pointless to address the “core arguments” because it always ends up fruitless in the end anyway. It’s a complete waste of time and energy because truth is clearly not the goal of the conversation when someone is simply trying to win an argument. By the way, I’ll save you the trouble of pointing out that this cuts both ways, I’m fully aware of Christians who use these tactics as well, and I don’t like discussing much with them either. BTW, I have read Dawkins and I believe I’ve given him a fair shake. I just find his core points difficult to understand through all the thick rhetoric, so I choose to spare myself the trouble and just ignore him. Same goes with some of things you’ve said on this board as well. I’ll discuss real matters with you or anyone else, as long as there is mutual respect and humility. Otherwise, I’m not really interested. You can call it evasive if you wish, that’s fine with me. But I’ll choose to spend my time on productive conversations, not swapping insults for ego sake. You wrote: Actually, I don’t need to tell you that, there is very good biblical reason to believe that creation began degrading as a result of the curse since the fall. For instance:
Gen 3:14-19
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
"Because you have done this,You are cursed more than all cattle,And more than every beast of the field;On your belly you shall go,And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman,And between your seed and her Seed;He shall bruise your head,And you shall bruise His heel."
16 To the woman He said:
"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;In pain you shall bring forth children;Your desire shall be for your husband,And he shall rule over you."
17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it':
"Cursed is the ground for your sake;In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground,For out of it you were taken;For dust you are,And to dust you shall return."
NKJV
And… Rom 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
NKJV Anyway, I don’t mean to start another rabbit trail on this thread. I really just wanted to correct your misunderstanding of my hermeneutics. If you’d like to begin another thread about how to effectively engage productive discussions, I’d be happy to share my thoughts on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 16, 2008 22:05:12 GMT -8
Chris, I for one am not a big fan of any view which holds that there were any biological changes due to the fall of humanity (not to mention changes in the laws of physics). I don't think the Scriptures you cited above are evidence of biological changes, but rather of situational changes for humans going from "protected status" to "out in the real world status", and, of course, this isn't even mentioning the scientific evidence which definitely would mitigate against that suggestion. Along these lines, I see the Romans passage as talking about something that occurred at the inception of creation itself, not at the fall of Adam and Eve. If one equates the law of decay with the law of entropy, then there is good scriptural evidence to show that such a law was already in effect before Adam and Eve's disobedience: they worked the garden. Work is dependant on some kind of law of entropy. I know that many Christians (those of the young-earth variety and their sympathizers ;D*) would disagree with this, which could make a very interesting side discussion, but... Mo, I don't have time to watch the video right now, but I've encountered this challenge before. There are a couple ways I would approach it: First, what this line of reasoning often misses in fantasizing about an "optimal organ" is that in nature each feature has pros and cons. For instance, with the eye, the very things that make it vulnerable are also the same qualities that help it see as well as it does. A cost-benefit analysis is always necessary. In other words, instead of just pointing out weaknesses, it must be acknowledged what strengths those weaknesses enable. If one wants to postulate a better eye, then one has to consider the potential drawbacks of the new features. Furthermore, all this postulating on what would be "better" must stop somewhere. Continue it ad infinitum and we would be arguing that God should have, well, made us Gods instead of humans. Our "creaturiless", by definition, involves limitations. God wanted it that way. And, with a knowledge of our sinful nature, I can see why. *Read age-agnostics  . You see, Chris, just one more reason why it matters. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 17, 2008 2:19:17 GMT -8
Chris, stop being such a crybaby. Weren't you the one who said that it's almost impossible to offend you? That you could deal with open and direct language even if offensive at times and that you "thoroughly enjoy such exchanges"*? Stop pretending as if I or Dawkins were merely ranting all the time and wouldn't provide logical arguments. You're not gonna fool anybody with your flight to the victim position. So why have you changed your paradigm from the feisty "bring it on" to the defensive "please don't ridicule me"? You're not standing with your back against the wall, are you? There are again many misconceptions in your last post, but I guess it becomes more and more obvious to objective readers what's generally going on in our discussions: you're not dealing with the core points, you're not answering most of my direct questions and if you do answer, you are mostly missing the point. You repeatedly try to discredit my points by linking them to fallacies that don't even apply to the vast majority of my points and the worst about it is, that you are committing those fallacies all the time yourself (ad absurdum, begging the question, appeal to authority, false analogy, assertion, argument from ignorance, etc. etc. etc.**). Maybe you are right, Chris. Maybe this is waste of time. I've learned a couple of new things from you and I'd like to thank you for that. But on the whole I've invested too much time in clearing misunderstandings and getting entraped into side arguments. Maybe we should stop our exchange right here. *reread your first replies to me on "the road to healing" if you can't remember having said such things. **there are even a couple of fallacies that I would like to add to your argumentation. Especially "slippery slope", "wishful thinking" and "false cause". The latter is what I tried to make clear with the werewolf example you evaded. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 17, 2008 2:41:48 GMT -8
Mo, I don't have time to watch the video right now, but I've encountered this challenge before. There are a couple ways I would approach it: First, what this line of reasoning often misses in fantasizing about an "optimal organ" is that in nature each feature has pros and cons. For instance, with the eye, the very things that make it vulnerable are also the same qualities that help it see as well as it does. A cost-benefit analysis is always necessary. In other words, instead of just pointing out weaknesses, it must be acknowledged what strengths those weaknesses enable. If one wants to postulate a better eye, then one has to consider the potential drawbacks of the new features. Furthermore, all this postulating on what would be "better" must stop somewhere. Continue it ad infinitum and we would be arguing that God should have, well, made us Gods instead of humans. Our "creaturiless", by definition, involves limitations. God wanted it that way. And, with a knowledge of our sinful nature, I can see why. All I'm saying is: the creation isn't perfect. There are multiple facts that underline this statement and I guess your last remark shows that you actually agree. We are no Gods. To your statement: "In other words, instead of just pointing out weaknesses, it must be acknowledged what strengths those weaknesses enable." I have a direct question: What strength, in your opinion, do wisdom teeth enable? The cost-benefit analysis seems to indicate that they cost more than they benefit and hence have to be removed in the majority of the cases. On a different note: If God created us imperfectly on purpose, we have to deal with his personality again. Especially if Chris is right and God punished billions of humans for the mistake or sin of two humans. (by the way: two humans who had no basis on which to estimate the consequences of their actions. Who had no experience of right and wrong.) |
|
)
. That was obviously a propaganda film aimed at discrediting the ID theory through ridicule. 
) I think they’re pretty self-evident. One guy even lamented that the average person on the street aint buyin’ what they’re sellin’ and went so far as to suggest that it’s possibly leading our country to be an oppressive theocracy similar to Iran (appeal to fear).
. You see, Chris, just one more reason why it matters.