BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 04:01 PM

but I think it unfortunate that you have used 'evolution' here for an easily reversed social change over a few hundred years whereas for all the rest of the thread we have used 'evolution' to refer to essentially irreversable biological changes of thousands of years.

There are a number of pitfalls (or pratfalls) to avoid in this kind of usage. First, be clear that evolution is not always (or even not often) "progress" from a human point of view. Deadly infections evolved from something less deadly to humans- perhaps because they "found" a way to spread more readily, like making humans sneeze. The fact that the toxins that cause the sneeze eventually kill the host is invisible to the virus.

Second, be clear about what is evolving - in the case of ideas, it is the ideas themselves, and not necessarily the society in which they thrive. The fitness to survive (or "infectiousness") of an idea can be completely at odds with the wellbeing of the members of the society hosting that idea. Just read back down this thread to see a nasty infection taking hold of the USA, or over to France for a similarly nasty one in a different social group.

Thirdly, don't fall into the trap of thinking of evolution as making entities that were the starting point for a development obsolete. The bacteria are ever with us. Never get fooled into thinking of evolution as a linear progress from primitive to modern- that cliche parade from crawling monkey, through shambling ape and stooped caveman, to upright, white, bearded, male modernity (all with the right leg forward to hide the naughty bits).

And as you correctly pointed out, the probability of reverse evolution back to the starting point is near enough zero to make no difference. The reason being that the probability of evolution of any given organism is similarly really zero- the combinations are so myriad, and the environmental contingiencies (that include every other organism on the planet among a host of other factors) so unpredictable, that evolution can only ever be viewed in detail backwards. Of course, it's not a paradox at all- you can easily set up an equally improbable situation by tossing a coin a thousand times and recording the results. The probability of that sequence is one in two to the power of a thousand - some estimates of the number of atoms in the Universe are less than two to the one hundred. But the probability of SOME sequence was almost exactly one. And the probability of the next thousand tosses repeating that sequence in reverse is almost exactly zero.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 11:17 AM

Nothing in biological Darwinism states that evolution is irreversible

Agreed. But entropy makes substantial biological reversals highly improbable, whereas most social changes are much easier to reverse, usually taking not much than a perceived threat to undue decades of liberal laws, for example. (I'm not just talking terrorism here - labour laws, immigration, .... there's lots of examples, both now and historically.)

Anyone seen a pinhead around here?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 09:33 AM

Evolution in the changing of physical matter, such as losing wings and gills may be the main interpretation of the word in this thread, but an idea can evolve over the time taken to down a pint.

Social changes may appear more reversible, but we could evolve back to where we came from given both the time and circumstances. Nothing in biological Darwinism states that evolution is irreversible, so long as the conditions for reverse are apparent and suitable.

It may be an unfortunate use of the word, but as the counter argument is a set of books written over only the last couple of thousand years or so, the social change you refer to could just as easily apply in the minds of those who wrote the bible in the first place. For instance, if the stage was set in a much colder climate than the Middle East, the bits about not eating pork or shellfish would not have been there, as people wouldn't have been dying from meat left in the warm. Ditto circumcism. The colder the extremities, the less fungal.. you get the picture. Scripture and adherence to them were in some cases excellent public health advice. Not needed now as we have "evolved" to use not only more sophisticated measures, but not so broad brushed either.

Carved in stone stories may be a useful metaphor for those who need such a thing, but they are themselves a snapshot of social evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 08:34 AM

Proof if ever you need it that evolution exists. In most western countries, we have evolved to the extent that a majority of people, enough to convince governments in fact, realise capital punishment is a grotesque crime in itself...

I understand what you mean, but I think it unfortunate that you have used 'evolution' here for an easily reversed social change over a few hundred years whereas for all the rest of the thread we have used 'evolution' to refer to essentially irreversable biological changes of thousands of years.   While I support biological Darwinism strongly, social Darwinism is different and has some deeply unpleasant things in its history

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 07:30 AM

"but bearded bruce appeared to believe the hebrew text supported aeons of time."

I stated that the words used in the older version of the Bible refer to a period of time, not a period of 24 hours. Thus, the Bible is NOT in conflict with evolution, which does not address
what part God may or may not have in natural selection.

Only those that are unaware of the meaning of what is claimed ( not specifically by me) to be God's Word would use a false reading of the text to support a claim against evolution.

And if they are unaware of this point, what else are they wrong about in their reading of the Bible? Are they more interested in supporting a viewpoint, or understanding what God had ( supposedly) stated?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 04:19 AM

What is the difference between a state that uses religion to oppress the masses and a state that calls its brand of religion secular?

The reason why North Korea, the old Soviet Union etc suppressed religion was that religion encroached on what it saw as its bailiwick, feeding fodder to the masses in order to control them.

When pete speaks of such states not tolerating political non conformity, he doesn't seem to acknowledge that to these people, there is no difference between religious and political non conformity.

I suggest that he looks at where religions have a front seat in politics and ask himself where tolerance of others is a feature?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 09:27 PM

Thanks, guys! 1300 posts of mostly trying to talk rationally to irrational people, and suddenly out bursts a fascinating little bit of debate and education about debate and clear communication. This is one of the reasons I love Mudcat!

John

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 06:58 PM

China: Shenist/Taoist and Buddhist. Government Atheist but does not specifically persecute religious people or temples.

Korea: Christian (Catholics and a rapidly growing number of Protestants) and a dwindling Buddhist population. No government persecution mentioned.

Vietnam: A non persecuted mix of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism.

Source Wikipedia.

Two minutes homework Pete.

No claims of religious persecution. Now, you were saying?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 06:25 PM

don don
i suspect that you are appealing to official policies as opposed to what actually happens.i was thinking of communist states that persecute christians and often other faiths also.i imagine political non conformity is not tolerated either.i was thinking of china[not hong konk],,N Korea and vietnam.i was also referring to the govt not the populace.
maybe we are thinking along different lines;but the above is what i had in mind-but probably transgressing your criteria!.
pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 07:42 AM

Change is not always for the better when looking at individual instances and examples. However, the larger the sample and the longer the time period, the more true the statement can be.

Civilisation is a two edged running with fizzing petard word, as we all know. Just look at Monty Python's "What did the Romans ever do for us" scene, or when Time Team unearth evidence of advanced society prior to what we still call "the dark ages." The conquistadors calling advanced South American culture "savage" also indicates that civilisation can be subjective as words go...

In any event, letting superstition and those who benefit by leading it interfere with society does have a track record and form when it comes to suppressing advancement. From Galileo all the way to stem cell research, via Darwin. Now... scientific discovery does sometimes need the brakes putting on, otherwise eugenics would have to be seen as respectable by dint of being scientific alone.

Not sure that scripture alone is the basis of injecting moral consideration into society. We don't need the big book and those who profit from it in order to stop me raping pillaging or coveting my neighbour's ass. We just need hard wired altruism, which everybody from Darwin to Dawkins has pointed out is a trait of survival...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 07:10 AM

The trouble is, Ian, that, as we all know, irony can be a dangerous, two-edged, own·petard kind of weapon in controversy.

The conviction that all change is for the better, all 'progress' [a ?-begging term in itself!] beneficent, is of course disputable. It is arguable {I am not necessarily arguing it, merely stating it to be a possible postulation} that absolute abolition of any kind of capital punishment in any circumstances was a step too far along the 'progressive' road. Some think so here; and it is policy in states which it would be foolhardy to denounce as 'less advanced'!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 06:41 AM

Yeah M, of course I undermined my own argument.

Mind you, by doing so I was being absurd.

The things you have to do in order to fit in to a thread eh?

Glad that pete saw the argument from ridicule though. Noticing is a first step to questioning which is a first step to ..

oh never mind.

Of course I am of the opinion that capital punishment is barbaric and a hangover from less evolved times. The human evolution is far more advanced in some areas than others. I did note USA, and not quite tongue in cheek as I find support for capital punishment to be abhorrent. Conversely, USA had digital watches before us, (I wonder how Douglas Adams would have joined in such debates?)

But M, this debate is about how biblical nonsense can (if at all) fit in with reality, and evolution in particular. Thus (nice word that...) it can be and is often demonstrated that capital punishment is an excellent example of how humans evolve. A few hundred years ago, anything goes. Two hundred years ago, hung drawn & quartered was seen as barbaric, hundred and twenty years ago, public executions were beyond the pail. Public support for such crimes demonstrate how our moral compass evolves.

Also shows that morals and altruism have bugger all to do with metaphysical nonsense. Most pack animals show traits such as looking after others.

Underlying message? This is one hell of a long thread in which to debate reality versus mass deranged minds. I `m fascinated by it though, and only throw the odd "emperor has no clothes" in it in order to remind all that at the end of the day, Jack the Sailor started this thread with questioning allowing children to be brainwashed with utter bollocks in the name of fantasy.

I call it child abuse. Which of course runs the risk of drifting into last year's hobby horse on Mudcat, and stain on hitherto respected religious clubs.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 06:09 AM

I can't think of a single state in which the majority of the populace does not belong to some well-known religion, and hence, subscribes to a belief in one or another of the many faces of God.


In places like the Netherlands the segment of non religious has been hovering around the 50 percent mark for a long time, I have some recollection there was a shift at some point where the non-religious did indeed become the majority, albeit by a small margin. I'd have to look recent statistics though to be certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 12:06 AM

I had heard that Wehrmacht soldiers had "Gott mit uns" belt buckles during WWI and WWII, but I didn't think there was a Nazi connection. Sure enough, there's a photo on this page of a belt buckle with a swastika and a "Gott mit uns" slogan.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 10:39 PM

By the way... there are many, many sites that deal with informal fallacies. Look it up...one may be easier to understand than another.

The site I quickly went to has a page of examples where he enlarges on my point about how tricky and complex it can be... the example are fun to read!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 10:29 PM

About ignoratio elenchi and other fallacies:

We all have had occasions when talking to someone, hearing them make some claim or argument that we KNOW just doesn't sound right.
If someone tells you "yogurt is good for clearing the sinuses", you first say "Huh?"...then you say "where did you the THAT idea?" Now, suppose they say "my barber told me so!" You then probably ask, "where did HE get that idea?" Imagine your thoughts if they answer, "Oh, I've been going to that barber for years, and he talks to lots of people and hears lots of good information! And besides, he had 2 years of college!"

About now you are pretty sure the yogurt claim is sounding silly...though you can't be 'sure'. All you know is that it's not the sort of claim you are willing to bet on.
That one is easy, and you can easily tell them "Barbers hear a lot, but you don't know where he got it, or whether he heard it right; besides 2 years of college proves NOTHING about a barber's ability to judge health claims about yogurt!" ... but often, you know someone's argument just 'feels' wrong, though you have no easy way to categorize it.

Well... philosophers and logicians HAVE worked out the categories and types of errors made in rhetoric. There are lists called "Informal fallacies" which go over almost every form of bad common reasoning you might encounter. Once you read a few of these, the light begins to dawn, and you think: "Hey...I hear politicians make THAT argument error all the time!"

Now... sometimes you 'feel' like you have spotted one, but it is hard to decide just where the error lies...maybe because there can be 2-3 'fallacies' embedded in one claim. Fast talking politicians get pretty good at using words and references in ways that make it hard to diagram their stuff and pin down exactly what to flaws are. Sometimes they give you 4-5 half-truths that sound ok, mixed with a couple that, if analyzed, just don't fit.

"My opponent can't be trusted...he refuses to kiss babies, he once got a traffic ticket while driving a Volvo, he was seen at a Beatles concert, he voted against Social Security, his father was a Communist...and he once strapped a dog to the roof of his car!"

Sort all THAT out! Some of it may be quite true....some of it may not...what is relevant?

Now... suppose you DO get it all sorted out and all the fallacious reasoning identified and properly labeled. It still MIGHT be true that the opponent is NOT trustworthy... but you can't be sure from that list! And just maybe, "trustworthy about WHAT?" has not been addressed.

What is the point? It is that truth and fact are one thing... good arguments are another. Someone might have a powerful truth, but are lousy at stating or defending it. What is important is: *a lot of bad, fallacious arguments and reasoning might just mean that it is a good idea to suspect the facts being claimed.*

If, over & over, someone uses fallacious reasoning to defend some assertions, claims and beliefs... then doubt about their assertions is warranted.This is what is going on here when many dispute various metaphysical/religious claims. Such claims are not "proven wrong"... but there is every reason to be aware they are not "proven right" by bad reasoning.

It would do 'almost' everyone some good to at least read a bit about informal fallacies, even if you never try to refer to them in technical ways....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 06:40 PM

To clarify: I referred to that particular form of elenchi called [in the proper sense. 'begging the question' [which does not, as sometimes ignorantly used, mean 'raising' the question]: i.e the assumption of the truth of that which is being disputed as part of the argument.

When Ian wrote

'capital punishment is a grotesque crime in itself, whereas less advanced countries such as Iran, USA, China etc still have enough superstitious low IQ voters to drown out the rational good people who also live there'

he was assuming that capital punishment is self-evidently an evil, in accusing countries practising it [incl USA!] of being 'less advanced': whereas the desirability or otherwise of such punishment is precisely the question currently under discussion. By so doing, {altho one appreciates that he probably wrote somewhat tongue-in-cheek & ironically}, instead of scoring any palpable point against the egregious Iona, he merely went far towards undermining his own position.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 06:30 PM

PS. Even in Nazi Germany, soldiers wore belt buckles with the motto "Gott Mitt Uns"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 06:28 PM

""even if there have been miscarraiges of justice.freedom of speech is a rare commodity in many atheist states even now and dissention is dangerous.""

Name three current "Atheist States"!

There is a very big difference between a Secular government in which religion plays no active part, and an "Atheist State", an entity which IMO does not currently exist.

I cannot think of a single regime which pursues an official policy of denying the existence of a deity.

The truth is that most of the oppressive regimes in the world are in fact theocracies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 06:23 PM

Where are some of these "atheistic states," pete?

I can't think of a single state in which the majority of the populace does not belong to some well-known religion, and hence, subscribes to a belief in one or another of the many faces of God.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 06:06 PM

not sure i understand the explanation mr happy!
it just seemed to me that the line of argument was weak in the extreme .then of course there was the usual argument from ridicule.and
we,ve had all that religion and cruelty accusation before and has been countered by the far greater record of atheist regimes of modern times inflicting more suffering than over the whole history of christianity.i would suggest that this holds true even if you restrict the argument to capital punishment.at least the intention of capital punishment in the USA is punishment of criminals,even if there have been miscarraiges of justice.freedom of speech is a rare commodity in many atheist states even now and dissention is dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 05:27 PM

Harry Stottle had phalluses in his organ?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 01:03 PM

I didn't know what above meant & guess I'm not alone, so here 'tis for all:

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation could logically be; "elenchi" (genitive singular of the Latin elenchus) is from the Greek ἔëåã÷ïò, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.[2] This is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon, and in a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_Elenchi

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 11:14 AM

Ian ~~ Congratulations on exceptionally striking use of Ignoratio Elenchi in your 3rd paragraph ~~ a real lulu.

On your side on the general principles involved, mind!

〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 08:59 AM

But Iona, God didn't command it because God doesn't exist.

I can understand that if a murderer says "I believe in all that crap" then by the murderer's leave, punishing him or her by the bible would be ok for the murderer. But it wouldn't be ok for the rest of the human race, because we don't need imaginary friends or big book of fairy stories to tell us murdering others is not a nice thing to do so don't do it.

Proof if ever you need it that evolution exists. In most western countries, we have evolved to the extent that a majority of people, enough to convince governments in fact, realise capital punishment is a grotesque crime in itself, whereas less advanced countries such as Iran, USA, China etc still have enough superstitious low IQ voters to drown out the rational good people who also live there.

Nothing to do with religion. Religion is given as the excuse for human cruelty, not the reason, and for that, add hypocrisy to the list of why most people dismiss religion as irrelevant nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Iona
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 01:59 AM

There were Adam & Eve. They had 2 sons. They were the only people around. One son killed the other. Then he went to live in the Land of Nod, which was East of Eden. Which seemed to be a well-established settlement ~ where did it come from? ~ with a big population ~ who they? where they come from? And he married a wife from there. Who was she?

They had 2 sons. Correct. One son killed the other. Also correct. They had sisters. Cain married his sister. "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"
Adam and Eve didn't stop at two children. They had quite a number. And it wasn't against the law yet to marry one's sibling (God didn't forbid that until Moses came along). The gene pool was very strong, and would not have been harmed by intermarriage. The whole of the human population was and is descended from Adam and Eve.

And then, how about incest being forbidden? ~~ see e.g. Lev 18 vi ff ~~ ......Or is    the fact that that happened chronologically before [God] gave Moses all those rules supposed to make a difference?

Does the Bible say that it was a good thing that Lot's daughters committed incest? No. And plenty of evil came from that act. I don't condone sin, and neither does God. (Exodus 20:5)


In both Exodus & Deuteronomy there's the 10 Commandments which include 'Thou shalt not kill'

Please explain how this fits with your advocation of stoning to death which 'god' commands?

The Hebrew word in that verse is actually לא תרצח׃ ס, which literally translates as "Murder". Webster's 1828 Dictionary says this: "Murder: 1. The act of unlawfully killing a human being with premeditated malice, by a person of sound mind."
Murder is wrong in the sight of God. But capital punishment is not murder. "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die." (Exodus 21:14) By killing another man, the criminal has forfeited his own life because he has taken the life of another. He has squandered the gift of life. Just as a man who steals from another man, Biblically the method of punishment is restitution (plus interest, depending). "An eye for an eye" (Exodus 2:24)
Is it more merciful to lock a murderer up in a cage for sixty years than to kill him as God commanded? No. Cages are for animals: NOT for humans created in the image of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 05:07 PM

bill-i am fully aware you do not accept the bibles record of origins but bearded bruce appeared to believe the hebrew text supported aeons of time.

penny-i believe i explained-albeit briefly-why "had" was seen as a valid translation.you have done your homework and cited others who translated otherwise.i have to confess to consulting less sources but the NJB and NKJV allow your view while ESV and new bible commentary do not.it seems that the heb constuction allows either but of course the choice of translation determines whether a contradiction is percieved or not
as to the vegetation mentioned in ch 2;the context is of a garden planted and requiring tending-rather than the general creation of plant life on day 3 of ch 1.

at least you ,don firth and i are agreed on "the good samaritan"!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 04:42 PM

Oh, and the priest and the Levite were not simply people who couldn't be bothered, they were people who were so concerned with their ritual cleanliness, who would have to go through a process of quarantine and bathing before resuming their duties in the Temple, that they had forgotten what the point of serving God is. If they had ever known, being hereditary post holders.

And since Jesus' mother's cousin was married to a priest of a status allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, he probably knew quite a bit about priestly behaviour.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 04:35 PM

He was also sneaky in the "unto Caesar" bit. They were in the Temple, where there should have been no coins but temple shekels (the money changers were there for that). The coins had the image of someone who claimed divinity on them, so were effectively doing what the Hellenistic rulers, and Roman Procurators had tried, intruding idols into the purity of the Temple. And those actions had led to rebellion and riot. They were a sign of Caesar arrogating to himself that which was God's.
Jesus could not say anything against Rome, with the Antonia fortress looming over the place, and probably Roman spies in the court of the Gentiles. Those opposed to him could denounce him as a trouble maker to the Romans. But if he did not speak against Rome, they could identify him as a collaborator with the occupiers and denounce him to the temple authorities.
So, by getting them to show the evidence of the wrongdoing of the Romans, and those who carried their coinage in the Temple, and by saying something that even to this day can be misconstrued, and is, he allowed all the good little Jewish scholars to understand what a good little Rabbi would teach, that nothing is Caesar's but all is God's.
"All things come of thee, O LORD, and of thine own have we given thee" as it says in the Book of Common Prayer.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 02:14 PM

He was talking about the importance of being rich enough to pay for other people to stay in hotels. I know this on the authority of St Margaret Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 02:10 PM

Jesus was sneakier than a lot of modern Christians realize. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, most people Jesus was talking to regarded Samaritans with contempt. Samaritans were "Them!" Say, like someone who is black, Jewish, gay, left-handed, and from the North might be regarded in back-country Alabama. He was the one, not the others who simply couldn't be bothered and looked the other way, who rendered assistance. "THAT man is your neighbor!" was what Jesus was saying. Not just for his rendering aid, but for what he was as well.

It's an important lesson the way most modern Christians understand it. But it was even punchier—a double lesson—to the people Jesus was talking to.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 01:37 PM

I don't think the JWs have problems with transubstantiation, as they split off from more mainstream Protestants who just don't believe in it.

Their chief problem is that all the other churches are Babylonian - proved by vestments, candles, festivals, altars, you name it. I didn't want to start an argument this morning, so I did not point out that Quakers don't have any of these things.

We had a school caretaker in the organisation once, and he gave me a load of old magazines. I also had one of their Bibles, and a children's Bible story book from a charity shop, for forestalling anything difficult. Interesting reads. Jesus was killed on a stake, not a cross, which they link with that peculiar Exodus episode of a snake on a stick.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 01:34 PM

Ian I never liked that type of technicality being used to get around religious law. I think it is a cop out for a self described Orthodox Jew to hire a "Goy" to light the lamps on the Sabbath, likewise I would frown upon Iona getting you to stone people for her, where obviously, if she is a Christian in the real sense of the word she cannot do it herself.

Me, I am a "render unto Caesar" kind of guy. Let the democratic process determine the law and let duly appointed agents of the State render punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 01:09 PM

Aye, that's another thing... Transubstantiation. I know Christianity became popular because it, like the Roman culture it aped, wove other creeds, traditions and thoughts into its own creed, like virgin birth, stable etc.

But I take it the body and blood of Christ does no more than show that at one time, human sacrifice was on the cards.

The more you read, the more repugnant this religion lark is...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 11:07 AM

That reminds me of the joke about the priest who had a lot of wine over after Mass.
'So what do we no with it?' quoth the alter boy, hopefully. 'Drink it?'
'No. We make black-pudding.'

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 10:32 AM

Are JWs allowed black pud? Life would be unthinkable without a nice bit of black pud.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 09:52 AM

in the context of the times there was no problem with the literary ability of the author[s]of genesis.

So you read the Bible with an eye on the context of the times? I'm relieved. What's all your other blather about, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 07:47 AM

JWs don't count, do they? Although there are a lot of them about; I even had next-door JWs once & sent them a Christmas card (in all innocence) and caused mortal offence. Is it right they have issues with transubstantiation because it involves drinking blood?

Still, it's always the kids I feel sorry for. Adults can choose to believe in this shit, but giving it to kids is criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 06:40 AM

Just had the JW's at my door.

They are my neighbours.
As is Pete.
And Iona.

And all the rest.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 06:20 AM

Ah, but ancestors who could write such elaborate metaphors for the evolutionary sciences so beloved of future generations. Unless they really were spacemen - and God really was / is an astronaut, which makes more sense than the Idiot Ominpotent God so beloved of Christians creating Atheist Enlightenment just to damn us all into an eternity of hell & stoning for thinking it was better than the unenlightened theistic alternatives.

If God there is, I'm sure nothing in the Bible comes close to telling us what class of being it might be. In any case, the biggest mystery in The Bible is a wee tale told in Luke 10:25-37 which has baffled humanity, and Christians, ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 05:25 AM

Just out of interest, why would a superstitious set of blokes in The Middle East a couple of thousand years ago be the oracle on human understanding, any more than a trainee psychiatrist would now?

Just a thought, before we get too bogged down in examining historical curiosities. The bible et al are wonderful books to gain an understanding of the history of human thought and endeavour but I remain bemused by the insistence that they could be more than what they are, the writings of ancestors.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 05:22 AM

a tardigrade, a platypus,

Two of my favourite creatures, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 04:14 AM

It does suggest a rather odd thought process. Genesis 2 does not say that man is in God's image, but if we are supposed to believe that 2 is an embellishment of 1, then God has made someone like himself, but that person is expected to be content with, for example, a tardigrade, a platypus, a scorpion, an eagle, a bluetit....

At least, according to NIV, which, alone of all the versions, including the Massoretic in translation, states wild animals. All the others write of the beasts of the field, which is presumably (and I have seen this in a commentary) describing things like cows, sheep, llamas, etc, which are used in agriculture.

He might have thought a parrot would be a comfort, but it's possible that the passage does not include even such companions as cats or dogs. Until it arrives at "all living creatures", which is pretty inclusive.

But God does not appear to think that a human being might require another being in the image of God to be a companion. Given the opinions of men since then, this idea seems to have appealed to a number of them as being His intention. Yes, you, Augustine, Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Gratian, and your fellow thinkers.

This is peculiar, if Genesis 2 is an enlargement of Genesis 1. If, however, Genesis 1 was written later, it suggests a more logical understanding of human nature.

Why would an omniscient being be so thoughtless as to suppose that while He wanted a creation who could respond to Him as a person in His image could, that person would be satisfied with anything less? Genesis 2 does indicate more primitive ideas in its authorship than 1, and is clearly contradictory of it. Or contradicted by it.

An omniscient being, able to see all of time, would know how that rib story would be warped by readers, distorting the message of Genesis 1. The difference in order, which is clearly there, except in NIV, is crucial to the understanding of all of humanity as being in God's image,

Does NIV have an agenda? KJV did.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 09:01 PM

Rather than cranking out all that stuff on speculation, wouldn't it have been easier to let Adam just thumb through a catalog?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 08:34 PM

I can't find anythiing but my New English and Revised English versions at the moment, and have broken a filing cabinet beyond repair trying to find the Revised Standard (it was only chipboard.) So i have resorted to the internet, and am using the NIV, as pete does.

Genesis 1, day 3:

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Genesis 1, day 6

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
    26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
   in the image of God he created them;
   male and female he created them.

The word "then", used in all the texts, does imply that the one act follows the other, as does the word "so".

Genesis 2, day unspecified:

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 2, immediately after the above.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

The plants clearly follow the creation of Adam, rather than preceding him by 3 days.

Genesis 2, immediately after the above.

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

Here the NIV has, as Pete says, "had formed".

The Revised English has "So from the earth he formed all the wild animals...

KJV has 19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The New English has "So God formed out of the ground..."

Revised Standard - So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

New Revised Standard -
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

So most of these scholarly researched versions have missed this verbal tense variation, and use the preposition "so" to imply a time sequence which is not there?

So back to sources, and a recent translation of the Septuagint:

And out of the Earth God furthermore formed all the animals of the field...

Furthermore does not equate to "had formed".

And from a translation from Hebrew:

And out of the ground YHWH Elohim formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..

No so, or furthermore, but also no "had", and I think in this case they should know what they are translating. There is a note by the verb which defines it as imperfect, or continuous past, as in "was forming", implying a making process like that by which the man was made, moulded out of soil.

The structure of the narrative is that God creates a male human, and then brings the animals to find him a companion, and then, when that fails, resorts to making a woman. The story demands that the animals appear before the woman, or it doesn't work. It also demands that they appear after the man, and while this could be done by collecting previously made specimens to show him, that isn't what any of the texts support except the NIV.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:38 PM

Pete... scripture does not NEED to support it. It is worked out and supported and verified by other means.
If you demand scriptural support for every scientific concept, you might as well be back in 1527.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 05:41 PM

penny-i am quite confidant that in the context of the times there was no problem with the literary ability of the author[s]of genesis.
the only specific you mention was of animals being created before man while apparently in ch 2 created between adam and eve.
hebrew had no specific verb form for a pluperfect and a number of heb scholars have recognized that the context of the narrative suggests a reading of "had formed..." as in the NIV translation.
i would not claim there are no questions,or that every question can be fully answered.there is enough ,clear enough, to lead us to repentance and salvation but plenty to occupy theological discussion.

well bearded bruce.you have me at a disadvantage if you are a heb scholar and can confidantly assert that the word "yom"[day}means "eaons/ages".the [non creationist] heb prof john barr thinks it refers to normal 24 hr day.even in the english; the number of the day and the eve and morning parameters suggest likewise IMO.
you may argue for darwinism but i contest the notion that scripture supports it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 12:51 PM

"From false premises, anything follows."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 12:20 PM

He started Sunday Morning, and finished at sundown, Friday. But those were Looooooong days, equal to 750 million of our years EACH.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 10:53 AM

........or if the imaginary being started on a Tuesday, after 6 days creating it'd be Sundae again!

No, that's no good it thought, let's try starting to make the world etc on a Monday, no good, finishes on Saturday again.

If the pretend creator started on any remaining day, then that 7th day would be the sabbath??