RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 >   
  Topic: AFDave's God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:51   

Quote
Incest derived offspring can be perfectly normal.

Haven't a good many island populations of whatever been seeded by a single pregnant female? Maybe inbreeding increases the odds of doubling bad traits, but it works the same with good traits. Maybe the resulting population is even stronger as a result (strong traits reinforce, bad traits that get reinforced die out).

Humans are willing to have plenty of disadvantageous characteristics so long as we avoid expressing them any more often than necessary. Trading one extraordinarily capable person for one congenital loser is considered a Bad Trade. But that's social, not biological.

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:35   

This is why there isn't much good Xtian porn about; all they want to see are brothers and sisters going at it and virgins being gang-raped by angels.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:50   

AFdave, tell us how some of the characters in the bible were able to live to be as old as 700 years.  

Bonus question - why is it that the only people who ever lived to be 700 or even 200 years old are all in the bible and no one has pulled this off since then.

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:12   

Hey, no offense, but I'm going to let you guys knock yourselves out with the virgins and the angels and I'm going to hop back over to my main topic of interest on my other thread here ... you only have so many hours in a day ... go to the Christian Research Institute (Hank Hannegraf) if you really want to sort all this out ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:31   

So you are running away Afdave... alas...

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,12:38)
Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Let me just show you one thing here ... the plain reading of this is very clear that there was SOME time lag b/t baring Enoch and building the city ... do you see this?  Babies don't build cities.  Grown up men do.  

Dave, I'm gonna let you find out yourself what's wrong with what you just posted.

It shouldn't be that hard.

Don't feel embarrassed when you do, however: I dont believe you're a fool or anything. I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:53   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:11)

Here's my logic ...
1) We hypothesize a Super-Intelligent Creator ... we can only imagine Him somewhat like a human mind because that is what we are familiar with, but much more intelligent ... this is my "B"
2) We observe a Surprising Fact that all over the world, people claim to have received messages--written and oral from some 'god' character ... this is my "A"
3) LOGIC:  If B were true, then A would follow naturally based on our own experience with Intelligent Agents (i.e. they communicate verbally and in writing)
4)  CONCLUSION:  There is reason to suspect that B is true...

Now how is this "junk" logic?

Simple. It's assuming what you're trying to prove.

You guess there's an all-powerful being who, by definition can do anything.

You see something. It doesn't even have to be surprising; it can be anything at all. But if it is surprising, it makes your "logic" more fun.

Therefore, because you've seen something, there must be an all-powerful being.

It's basically "junk logic," Dave.

And "suspecting something is true" is a meaningless concept. Given the number of half-eaten cookies scattered all over America every December 25th, I have "reason" to suspect that Santa Claus exists.

These kinds of "arguments" are weak to the point of non-existence. They might work great at your Sunday afternoon church meeting, but they're going to get blown away in no time in front of a sophisticated audience, which is what you have here.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:48)
Renier--

I understand that you have the opposite suspicion, and I believe that you also could try to make Inferences to the Best Explanation for YOUR suspicion.  And this is where I think my evidence ... "cosmic fine tuning, the anthropic principle, etc." as I will elaborate on soon lead to a Super-Intelligent 'god-like' character as a better explanation than other alternatives.

Before you waste our time with your "cosmic fine tuning," and "anthropic principle" rant, you should probably know that many if not most of the people here are familar with "The Privilged Planet," and are unimpressed.

If that's where you're going, save yourself the trouble. We've been there, read that, laughed.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,16:29   

Oops! It was Cain, not Enoch that built the city ... good eyes Faid!  You must be a doctor or something ...

Now why again does that matter?  Are you concerned about the fact that he built a city for only 3 people.  Did I not clear that up already?  I plan on giving a lot more detail as I walk through this whole thing on the other thread.

Quote
I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Now why do you want to insult me like that?  I was starting to like you!  Naaa ... I still do ... and I bet you make reading errors once in a while yourself.

Have a good night!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,17:30   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,21:29)
Oops! It was Cain, not Enoch that built the city ... good eyes Faid!  You must be a doctor or something ...

Now why again does that matter?  Are you concerned about the fact that he built a city for only 3 people.  Did I not clear that up already?  I plan on giving a lot more detail as I walk through this whole thing on the other thread.

Quote
I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Now why do you want to insult me like that?  I was starting to like you!  Naaa ... I still do ... and I bet you make reading errors once in a while yourself.

Have a good night!

That was not meant as an insult, afdave. Sorry if you saw it that way.

Think of it this way: A man is madly in love with a woman. There is plenty of evidence, however, that the woman is cheating on him. Friends see the obvious, and tell him. But he just does not listen. He disregards telltale signs and proof that, if he'd seen in any other woman, He'd label her "cheater" from a mile away. He looks, but he doesn't see.
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool -he's just in love.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,17:36   

Carol, given the rigor of several of your past posts, there was some discussion about whether the person using your moniker was actually you.  I guess that settles the debate. :)  Regarding yom: would not the Fourth Commandment be somewhat nonsensical were not a literal day implied in Creation?  I swear I asked this once on PT directly, but I don't recall if an answer was offered.

Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?  It makes sense, it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible that I'm aware of: why the inane illogic to support incest and a bunch of unsupportable hunches?

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,19:08   

UnMark,

What Genesis does is take the history of the evolution of the universe and life on earth and divide it into seven overlapping periods of development (not presented in chronological order). A good argument can be made that these are not arbitrarily chosen just to get to the number seven, but that they are based on some sense of what is most important to human beings and their perception of their place and role in the universal scheme of things. Perhaps you and I, if asked to list what we thought was most important to us in the history of the universe, would come up with a different set of developments. Be that as it may, much scholarly and theological discussion has already been invested in shedding light on this matter but it is only tangentially related to your question.

The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,19:54   

Quote (UnMark @ May 01 2006,22:36)
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?  It makes sense, it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible that I'm aware of: why the inane illogic to support incest and a bunch of unsupportable hunches?

Most young-earthers would argue that if we are not all descended from Adam and Eve then we have not all inherited  Original Sin meaning that there was no need for Jesus to die on the cross since we did not need to be "saved".  In other words, if the events in Genesis did not literally happen the way it was written then there's no point to the rest of the Bible.

To them the issue of inerrancy is like a house of cards. If you pull on one of them, their whole building comes crashing around them, leaving them with nothing.  

That's why they are so dogmatic about the issue of origins. If a young-earther can't find a way to reconcile their faith with a non-literal Genesis, then they're never going to accept anything science has to offer in this area since it directly contradicts their beliefs.

There are old-earthers who still believe in Biblical inerrancy--the Reasons to Believe outfit and the infamous David Heddle spring to mind--but they are far fewer in number than young-earthers and feel the squeeze from both sides--from the young-earth creationists who hate how they mangle the literal meaning of the Genesis text to get past a young Earth and global flood, and from the rest of Christianity who feel no need to treat early Genesis as a historical document.

Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,01:03   

Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)
Quote
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool - he's just in love.
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.  Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."  Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Pardon me if my answers are very short over here ... I will be spending most of my time over on my other thread and would welcome your comments there.  I will be discussing the First Point in my Hypothesis today.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,01:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)
Quote
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool - he's just in love.
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.  Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."  Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Pardon me if my answers are very short over here ... I will be spending most of my time over on my other thread and would welcome your comments there.  I will be discussing the First Point in my Hypothesis today.

Typical guy: all talk, no action.  You keep promising data, but you never deliver.  In that sense you are exactly like every other creationist we've seen.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,03:48   

Quote
here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.

This sort of statement desperately calls for posting that wonderful cartoon where the scientist says "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?" and the creationist says "Here are the conclusions. What facts can we find to support them?"

And here we have afdave saying "First, assume your conclusions. THEN, go out and find any *possible* support for them. If you can't find any, you just aren't trying, because the conclusions are assumed, and can't be wrong."

And RGD wants data? There we have it: doctrinal certainties optionally backed by selective misrepresentations. Optional because since the doctrine is certain, nothing else is particularly relevant anyway.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,03:54   

Quote
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.

I'm really sorry you had to go through all that- it's not something I'd wish for anyone. Now, apologizing in advance for any discomfort this reminiscence might give you, can you tell me if you remember how you felt then? How you saw things? If so, are the thought processes and the feelings you have now for the inerrancy of the bible more comparable to "I examine all the evidence and conclude my girl loves me", or "I know my girl loves me, and no evidence I've seen has convinced me otherwise"?
Those two lines of thought are not identical... But I see you've already answered that. See below.
Quote
Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."

Certainly it's possible with all of us- who can delve into the minds of every man? However, looking at the big picture, there is a crucial difference. I am not emotionally charged towards one side; I have no reason to. I do not, for instance, think my immortal soul might be in danger if I do not accept the inerrancy of the bible.
Or that my moral worldview, and everything I hold sacred, will collapse if my beliefs turn out to be wrong. Making up my mind, or changing it, has no world-crumbling consequences. I'm not the spokesperson of all the powers that be; I'm just a man.

(Oh, by the way, of course I believe that all inconsistencies in the bible must be cleared without doubt before I accept it's inerrant- that's what inerrancy means, after all. "Inerrancy" is not a relative term. What would you say to someone that told you Jesus was "mostly" without sin? See? Now, you feel that way because you believe that a Savior without sin is an absolute; well, the Inerrancy of the bible is an even greater one -logically speaking, not theologically. Either it's true, or it's not.)

So, having no moral or spiritual bond towards any side, I can examine the evidence first, then accept the side they point to. But it seems you think this is not right:
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Dave, this is exactly what science must not do.
Well, that's not something anyone should ever do, I think, but let's stick to science for now... Assuming your theory is right, and then trying to come up with all the data supporting it, and disprove all other data whatever the cost, can eventually help you "prove" just about anything: From cold fusion and Lysenko's genetics to martian canals (or martian face) and hollow earth.
In fact, most (if not all) of the major blunders in the history of science had this kind of reasoning as a starting point: Most of the great breakthroughs came by people who looked at the data first and then came up with successful theories to explain them, after years of hard work- or, sometimes, after a sudden epiphany.
Do you have a reason to think that the Lord walks with you when you follow the first path, and scorns you when you follow the other?
Now, I know what you are going to say: That's the evolutionists who do that, who turn away from the facts, and if you read this book etc.
I'm sorry, there is just no easy way to say this: That's simply a lie.
It's not your lie, however: Neither is it your fault.
Like I said, I do not beleive you are a liar for jesus: I just believe that you, like many others, unfortunately, has been systematically misled by people who are.
People who try to twist reality and distort facts to promote their views- and, often, make a buck in the process; people who cannot claim ignorance for their actions, and their deliberate misleading, with their books and tapes and sites and "museums", can only be attributed to malice.
And people like you, who turn to them seeking evidence that would validate their worldview- you are their favorite prey.
I only hope that, when you start posting all your proof for a young earth, you will let us demonstrate that to you.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1815
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,04:15   

AFDavesays
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  


For the last two months there has been a wingnut posting over on the TheologyWeb Natural Science page, arguing for Geocentricity (i.e. the sun, planets, and stars all rotate around a stationary Earth).

This Bible Inerrancy proponent bases his belief on passages such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

Quote
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.


and Joshua 10:13:

Quote
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


Many people have patiently explained the copious scientific evidence that shows this is wrong, from satellite launches that must take into account the Earth's rotational velocity, to observed stellar parallax, to the measurable wobble in the Earth's rotational axis caused by the mass displacement of the tides.  The Bible Inerrancy guy refuses to listen to any evidence - according to him it's everyone else who has a "closed mind".

How do you feel about that bit of Bible inerrancy? Do you think the whole universe revolves around a stationary Earth?  Why or why not?

I don't mean to distract you from your task of publishing your scientific evidence for YEC, but think about this on the side and answer when you can.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,04:30   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,11:18)
This is America ... go for it!

Ummm ... no ... this is not America.

This is the internet.

Many of us who are reading your guff aren't (gasp! ) in or even from America. Imagine that!

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,04:36   

Chuckle. Assume the bible is inerrant, then research this assumption at a Christian bookstore. Works for dave...

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,05:45   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06)
You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)

No, Dave, you're the same kind of YECer we've seen a million times before. The same lack of logic or debating skills ("absolutely unsupportable assertion here. More later."—but then the "more" fails ever to arrive).

Your assertions are entertaining purely for their utter inanity, nothing more.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,17:34   

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

It makes much more sense than any YEC position I can think of, and is a position/view I wish more Christians would adopt.

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.


ugh - stepped on my foot again.  No offense was meant.  I don't follow every thread here or at PT, but the few posts I've seen at PT compared to the two or three I saw here prior to this thread were very abrupt and appeared almost to be two different people.  That's actually why I used that Eminem line earlier in this thread. . . .


Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06: 03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.

I must have my eyes on backwards.  No matter how many times I reread what I wrote, I cannot get from "maybe God created many familes, but only one is focussed on in Genesis" to "evolution with no divinity involved."  I can think of a number o explanations, but I'll reserve judgement until you can explain how I'm misreading myself.

(Edited to add response to Carol in lieu of double-posting)

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,19:18   

Unmark,

Of course a better question would be, in what sense are we currently in an era of "rest" when we know that evolution is an ongoing process, just as it was during some of the other six eras.

It seems to me that God, via the Bible if it is divinely inspired, is telling us that henceforth evolution will not lead to anything as drastically new and overpowering (on earth) as the appearance of humankind some 20,000 years ago. If I am correct about this, we have here a specific prediction we can hold the Bible to. Only problem is you and I will not be around long enough to see it disproven. (It can never be firmly proven since one can always claim that in the future it may yet be disproven.)

Too bad.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,20:55   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)

Dave, just think for a moment.  In the very same comment you first call Evolution "inane" and then you ask me if I think you're a different (kind of) YECer...

I think you already know my answer.   :)

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,21:18   

Quote (stephenWells @ May 01 2006,13:00)
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)
Quote

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first?  Animals or Man.  No time now ... stay tuned!

How much time could you possibly need to answer such a simple question? I'll help you out and give you three options:

A) Genesis 1 is correct (animals before man ) and Genesis 2 is wrong.

B) Genesis 2 is correst (man before animals) and Genesis 1 is wrong.

C) The man and woman created in Genesis 1 are not the same as the man and woman created in Genesis 2 (traditional attempt at reconciliation, leading to e.g. Lilith legend), further details to follow.

Now all you have to do is type A, B or C and then explain in more detail later. Easy, eh?

Back to reality, I was reading on the infidels.org forum about the OT document theory which is (excluding apologists) the current most accepted theory about the OT origins. The theory is that there were a number of authors and a couple of editors for the OT. Genesis was written by two authors and blended by an editor and when you read genesis split like this it makes more sense as a narrative. So genesis 1 and genesis 2 have different authors. I suppose rather than throw out one of the myths they kept both (A little why the contradictions in the Gospels were kept and even a modern biography might have different versions of the same events).

Though Cain's wife has me flumoxed. Even 3000 years ago people were not stupid. You think they would have put in some explanation around it.
Michael

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,21:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
... that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent ...

Define "Intelligent Agent," Dave.

That phrase is used by two people in two different ways. It's used by Dembski to mean "God." And it's used by Marvin Minsky to mean a simple computational capability that can work in a massive parallel systems.

In Minsky's view, human intelligence is built up from the interactions of simple agents, (or intelligent agents) who are themselves mindless. He describes those interactions as constituting a "Society of Mind", hence the title of his book:

The Society of Mind
http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155
http://www.emcp.com/intro_pc/reading12.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

Evolution itself, as Danny Hillis demonstrated, is potentially such an Intelligent Agent even though it is mindless. Thus your claim that you must accept Evolution with no Intelligent Agent is false from a Minsky perspective and only true from a Dumbski perspective.

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,02:40   

Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author. Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this. The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.

The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.

So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.

The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!

It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,02:50   

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 03 2006,07:40)
Quote
Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author.
What a pitiy that no ones agree with you.  While it must be enjoyable (and certainly fits in with your martyr complex) to be the 'lone voice of reason', your inability to actually support your position with anything but bad logic and bad Hebrew is embarrassing to intelligent Jews everywhere.

Quote
Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this.
Anyone with a good grip of Biblical Hebrew can see that you are forcing interpretations that do not fit.
Quote
The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.
Liar.  You really should try to get your facts right, Carol.

Quote
The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.
Nor did the author care about your opinion.

Failure to support your case with anything but your personal opinion (or Landa's, since you don't appear to have opinions of your own) does not make an argument.

Quote
So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.
Factually incorrect.  Perhaps you ought to try reading the book, rather than pontificating about it.

Quote
The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!
What a good thing then that scholars don't make the argument for that reason!  What a good thing that you offer your personal and second-hand opinion as somehow superior to the work of more than two thousand years of scholars.

Quote
It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.
Perhaps, then, you ought to demonstrate some of this objectivity.

See above.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,16:40   

Hello Carol,

My post was meant for the evdence based people on this forum who might be interested in the current mainstream position. I am not able to come to these forums enough to hold any kind of debate. Sure this position might be overturned but that's science *shrug*. Your comment about scholars sounds more like sour grapes than anything else because rather than holding a party line they seem to spend most of their time squabling.

Carol, I have seen you talk about what you believe but not the details (I think we are supposed to buy some book or other). Has it been debated anywhere on the internet? If not why not put forward you position in the Bible Criticism and History area of the Internet Infidels forum. I know that it is an atheism site but a lot of Christians and other Theists go and debate there (quite a few are knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek) as the site is generally free of fundie trolls.

There was a debate their recently about explaining Genesis based on a "Gap" theory. This was also based on reinterpreting the original Hebrew which sounds similar to what you are trying to do. Although, his translations are a trifle forced.

Michael

p.s. It would also be good to see a defence against the archaelogicial evidence of the Bible namely:

. No evidence of Jews being in Egypt
. No evidence of a large group of people wandering around the desert for forty years.
. Town of Ai that was supposed to be conquered had ceased to exist long before the supposed battle.
. Jericho didn't have walls around the time the walls were supposed to have been blown down.
. Prophesy that Tyre was to be razed to the ground never happened.

The current people defending these aren't doing a particularly good job.

I find it ironic that all this effort is being spent by DI and the creationists on evolution when archaeology and Bible scholarship are quietly doing more damage to their beliefs than evolution ever could.

Michael

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,23:03   

Tacitus said ...
Quote
Claiming that harmful genetic mutations have increased to the point of reducing our lifespan to 10% of what it used to be 6,000 years ago is about as sensible as claiming the speed of light is a fraction of what it used to be


Hey Tacitus ... I know a good eye doctor I could recommend that could prescribe some eye glasses or contacts so you could accurately read what I write ... but if it was not an eyesight problem and you are going to deliberately misrepresent what I write, then kindly get off my thread so I don't have to waste my time correcting your mistakes ...

I said that by the time of Moses, genetic mutations would have accumulated enough to make close marriages unsafe, hence the anti-incest laws.  Get it?

The long lifespans prior to the Flood are a different matter.  I will give more details on this later on my other thread.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
  198 replies since April 27 2006,06:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]