Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No knowledge of Creationism.
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 61 of 77 (659548)
04-16-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by foreveryoung
04-16-2012 2:28 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
Yes, I am a biblical literalist. The genealogies are accurate; they just were never meant to measure time.
Nonetheless, they do give us measures of time, whether they were intended to or not.
They have been trimmed multiple times to keep them from being unwieldy. The son is still the ancestor of the father in each line. The hebrew language does not neccesitate a 1 generation descent per line. Hundred of generations could be held within one descent line.
What backing can you provide for that exactly? To me it sounds like an assumption which is not justified by the texts.
Just because you can't find human fossils, doesn't mean they weren't living. Can you find fossils for every species that ever lived? I didn't think so. You can make no definitive statements about what lived and what didn't live based on fossils.
It's not just that there are no human fossils, it's that there are no animal fossils of any kind! There aren't even any eukaryotes known from the Archean. Are you really suggesting that humans and modern plants and animals lived back then without leaving the slightest trace? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
I am at the very top of both of my geology classes and was the top of the one I took last semester. I am not suicidal. Why should I risk such a good record?
I dunno, honesty? I mean, do you really want to understand geology or do you just want to waste your time learning to recite a bunch of meaningless falsehoods?
If your ideas about Bible-friendly geology are worthwhile, then your geology professors are exactly the people you need to be talking to. They will have the expertise needed to talk through your theories with you and iron out any faults. If your ideas are really that important, you might change their minds. Even if not, at least you would be doing something meaningful rather than parroting stuff you don't believe.
On the other hand, if your take on geology is wrong - as I believe it is - then your professors will be the ideal people to help you see that. They will put your ideas to the acid test. If those ideas are mistaken, they will be able to help you see it. That's a good thing. We should never be afraid to put our ideas to the test, even if it occasionally means being forced to abandon some cherished notion.
Erosion cannot date a single thing. It isn't consistent enough across all situations to be reliable.
I wasn't talking about dating by erosion, I meant that your deposition based method doesn't seem to take it into account.
Yes, my model takes plate tectonics into account. My accelerated decay model provides a means for rapid plate movement and subduction.
Well don't be shy; do tell.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by foreveryoung, posted 04-16-2012 2:28 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 62 of 77 (659550)
04-16-2012 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
04-16-2012 2:48 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
foreveryoung writes:
I am at the very top of both of my geology classes and was the top of the one I took last semester. I am not suicidal. Why should I risk such a good record?
Well, sure, if you never say what you think, then your record would be perfectly good. Also, if I never said what I think, I could pass myself off as a good Christian. But the success of my dishonesty wouldn't make me a good Christian. And if you are deceiving your professors, that doesn't prove that you are good at geology, it proves that you are good at pretending to be good at geology, 'cos of being a liar.
Well actually, what he thinks and believes really doesn't have any bearing on doing well in geology class. Rather, it is how well he knows the material and can do the work. Science is kind of funny that way.
Now, of course, if he were to go on and make claims and statements that he knows from his knowledge of geology to be untrue (eg, Dr. Steve Austin while as a graduate student writing as "Stuart Nevins" making claims of slow strictly uniform laying down of sedimentary strata which any beginning geology student should know to be false), then he would be a liar. But not for not fully agreeing with the subject matter of the geology classes.
Remember, it is religious teachings that are meant to compel belief, not scientific teachings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 11:41 PM dwise1 has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 63 of 77 (659570)
04-16-2012 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
04-16-2012 2:48 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
So, when the Bible says "son", we shouldn't take that literally, because interpreting the Bible literally would be a stupid way to interpret the Bible.
I suppose you think of taking the bible literally differently than I do. A biblical literalist recognizes literary devices when they are obvious. It is usually the last resort. They also understand the limitations of the modern english mind when it comes to understanding what ancient hebrews meant. Their world was different than our world. What the literalist never, ever does it to jump to saying everything is a metaphor when it doesn't automatically make sense at first glance from a natural reading. The literalist is very careful not to allegorize anything if a literal interpretation is possible at all.
You think I am not reading the genealogies literally. This is false. I am reading them as the ancient hebrews meant them to be understood. The fault of modern understanding is in poor english translation. If you understood the culture of the ancient hebrew you would recognize by sentence structure when a direct father son genealogy is the case and when an extended father to son genealogy is the case. This is written about extensively on the web.
One web example is " A new approach to earth's history" at Earth was created, destroyed, then naturally renewed.
It isn't the main article there but you should have no problem finding it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nwr, posted 04-16-2012 9:58 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 11:37 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 64 of 77 (659573)
04-16-2012 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by foreveryoung
04-16-2012 9:26 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
foreveryoung writes:
A biblical literalist recognizes literary devices when they are obvious.
The "Adam and Eve" story has talking snakes and magic trees. You don't think that's obvious enough?

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by foreveryoung, posted 04-16-2012 9:26 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 77 (659575)
04-16-2012 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by foreveryoung
04-16-2012 9:26 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
You think I am not reading the genealogies literally. This is false. I am reading them as the ancient hebrews meant them to be understood. The fault of modern understanding is in poor english translation. If you understood the culture of the ancient hebrew you would recognize by sentence structure when a direct father son genealogy is the case and when an extended father to son genealogy is the case. This is written about extensively on the web.
As dwise1 points out, a non-literal reading of the words "son", "father", "begat", etc doesn't help you here. What matters are the intervals of time.
You say that you're reading them "as the ancient hebrews meant them to be understood", but if you were reading them at all you'd know that they look like this:
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.
... and so on and so forth. It doesn't matter if (for example) "the father of Kenan" doesn't literally mean the father of Kenan. What matters is that it gives Enosh's age when Kenan was born.
Using this and other data we can figure out a chronology for the Bible. I've done that myself.
(The excuse about "son" not meaning "son" is (IIRC) used to explain away the discrepancies between the two genealogies of Jesus.)
One web example is " A new approach to earth's history" at Earth was created, destroyed, then naturally renewed.
He writes:
In reality, however, the genealogies from Adam to Abraham originated in an oral culture. While they might initially have included a chronological function, their main purpose was to define the identity of the individual in relation to his forbears. As time went on, the chronological function became impossible to maintain; to remain manageable, the lists had to be repeatedly trimmed.
So far from Genesis being the Word of God, this chap sees it as the written version of a muddled and inaccurate oral history.
Now if you're going to give up on the accuracy of the Bible, why not go the whole hog and be right?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by foreveryoung, posted 04-16-2012 9:26 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by foreveryoung, posted 04-17-2012 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 77 (659576)
04-16-2012 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by dwise1
04-16-2012 3:48 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
Well actually, what he thinks and believes really doesn't have any bearing on doing well in geology class.
Except that if he said what he believes in essays and exams, presumably he'd do less well. That was my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by dwise1, posted 04-16-2012 3:48 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2012 12:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 67 of 77 (659577)
04-16-2012 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Son Goku
03-26-2012 6:41 AM


Topic abandonment
All of message 1:
I was wondering did anybody else here grow up with no knowledge of Creationism? I don't
think I ever met anybody in my youth who actually thought the world was made in seven days by God only a couple of thousand years ago. I was completely surprised when I found this out in my late teenage years.
Was this the case with anybody else?
Shall we get back in touch with the topic (and find a better place for the off-topic stuff)?
Otherwise, closing this topic down soon (no less than 24 hours).
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Son Goku, posted 03-26-2012 6:41 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2012 11:40 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 68 of 77 (659579)
04-17-2012 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dr Adequate
04-16-2012 11:41 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
And I went on to say:
DWise1 writes:
Rather, it is how well he knows the material and can do the work.
At this point, doing the work involves demonstrating that he knows and understands the required material and knows how to work with it. And will doubtless continue to be that way for the rest of his undergraduate program.
If he does decide to present his own ideas, then he will have to be able to support and defend them thoroughly. That would be more for graduate and post-graduate work. And hopefully by then his presentation and defense won't be screaming "I hate you!", "Fuck you!", "Go to Hell!", and other such gems.
BTW, in your other message, I wasn't the one who was talking about the genealogies in Genesis.
PS:
Only just now saw admin's admonishment.
Edited by dwise1, : PS
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 11:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 69 of 77 (659596)
04-17-2012 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Son Goku
03-26-2012 6:41 AM


My experience
My response to Son Goku's question, is that I have never met anyone who has expressed creationist views to me. (I use "creationist" in the sense that everyone else is using the word, not in the sense that iCant is using it).
I grew up in the 70s and 80s in the Midlands of England, to non-religious parents, and my exposure to stories from the bible ended when I finished primary school at age 11. (Religious education continued at secondary school (11-18), but was focussed on learning about other world religions than Christianity).
I have a number of friends who have a religious faith, mainly Christians, but none of them has ever expressed any creationist beliefs to me.
I only became aware of the prevelance of creationist beliefs through reading the BBC News website and some newspapers. Continued reading, and some Googling eventually led me here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Son Goku, posted 03-26-2012 6:41 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 04-17-2012 9:17 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 70 of 77 (659598)
04-17-2012 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICANT
04-16-2012 11:20 AM


Theoretical Interpretations Of Scripture
ICANT writes:
The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the ground. Thus he was made not created.
You said earlier that my deck would exist in a different form.
quote:
since the metal and wood does exist, the deck exists in some form just not in the form you have imagined ...
Thus, if man was made and not created, would you say that humans always existed...as dust or as some other form of matter? Was the life within us created?(or did it too exist in someone else?)
hmmmm... in Him was life, and that life was the light of the world....thus, has life eternally existed through God?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2012 11:20 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 04-17-2012 5:27 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 71 of 77 (659599)
04-17-2012 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by vimesey
04-17-2012 8:57 AM


Re: My experience
vimesay writes:
I have a number of friends who have a religious faith, mainly Christians, but none of them has ever expressed any creationist beliefs to me.
Hello and welcome to the discussion! Personally, I find it easier to express my creationist ideas as philosophy and speculation. I may use scriptures to support that the ideas could be interpreted theologically, yet I never limit them to that.
Creationism runs into trouble when the idea tries to define the science.
Creationism is a valid topic for Theological philosophy. (IMHO)
Edited by Phat, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by vimesey, posted 04-17-2012 8:57 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 77 (659610)
04-17-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Adminnemooseus
04-16-2012 11:59 PM


Re: Topic abandonment
If foreveryoung would like to talk about the age of the Earth, I shall start a thread. If he'd prefer it to be in GD format, that's fine by me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-16-2012 11:59 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 73 of 77 (659637)
04-17-2012 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Phat
04-17-2012 9:14 AM


Re: Theoretical Interpretations Of Scripture
Hi Phat,
Phat writes:
You said earlier that my deck would exist in a different form.
Yes, just as the man in Genesis 2:7 existed in another form. The only thing added was the breath of life from God.
Phat writes:
Thus, if man was made and not created, would you say that humans always existed...as dust or as some other form of matter? Was the life within us created?(or did it too exist in someone else?)
I would say the body of the man in Genesis 2:7 had existed from the beginning. But that man was not modern mankind.
The man in Genesis 2:7 was made from the dust of the ground. Then God added life to that form He had formed from the dust of the ground.
Modern man that was created in Genesis 1:27 was not created from any existing material.
Phat writes:
hmmmm... in Him was life, and that life was the light of the world....thus, has life eternally existed through God?
Fact: life produces life.
Non life ever produced life.
But we are straying from the topic if you have other questions email me, or start a thread to discuss this subject further.
God Bless,
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Phat, posted 04-17-2012 9:14 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 74 of 77 (659663)
04-17-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate
04-16-2012 11:37 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
So far from Genesis being the Word of God, this chap sees it as the written version of a muddled and inaccurate oral history.
That is absolutely incorrect. He absolutely sees Genesis as being the word of God. It is absolutely accurate for the information that is intended to be conveyed in the genealogies. You have to understand the purpose of a passage in order to judge its accuracy. What is the purpose of the genealogies?
their main purpose was to define the identity of the individual in relation to his forbears.
What part of this do you not understand? When you understand the purpose of the genealogies for ancient hebrew culture, you will see that the genealogies are actually incredibly accurate.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 11:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2012 10:53 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 77 (659667)
04-17-2012 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by foreveryoung
04-17-2012 10:07 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
See message #67.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by foreveryoung, posted 04-17-2012 10:07 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024