This is for both sides to consider:
Have any of you noticed that when a fossil comes out one of the two sides immediately jumps on it?
When the Nebraska man came out it was immediately used in the Scopes Monkey Trials to solidify the growing theory of evolution. It was later found that the fossil consisted of a single tooth belonging to an extinct species of pig.
When a creationist finds the complexity of an organ or organism they immediately publish a document stating how it shows that evolution is utterly false. Often these organs are proven to be less complex than previoulsy thought.
This is entitled "Go for the Heart" because rather than going for the mind and bringing evidence to the other side to be tested and critiqued, evolutionists and creationists immediately print it in order to cripple the other side and build up its own beliefs.
I know evolutionists will completely deny this (as will creationists) but both sides have questionable flaws that can not be left alone. In modern times we no longer want to find out the truth but to be proven correct and rub it in the face of those who oppose us so that we can end the courage that they once had.
Why can't we do this:
When evolutionists find a fossil that "proves evolution" they should bring it to the creationists and collectively examine it. Then both sides write their critiques on the fossils including the arguments for the other side.
When creationists find an amazingly complex organism why can't they show the evolutionary medical teams and collectively observe it once more, and repeat the process.
The conclusions will still be different but we won't have a bunch of brainwashed zombies anymore.
When I was a young-earth creationist we discussed the Scopes Monkey trials in History Class. It was inevitably brought up that I was a creationist and the teacher said "I don't know how you could have such an opinion" we had a debate (informal) and I crushed both the evolutionary classmates and the teacher because I was the only one who had researched both sides. The comment by the teacher made it harder for me to accept evolution and therein lies another problem.
We are prideful creatures, some would rather be ignorant than allow somoeone to gloat. So if we realize we have made a mistake we hide it and cover it up, dodging the issue and further increasing the pain.
I am really fed up with the debate. I will continue to debate but it is some of the people here who mock Creationists and some of my creationist friends who basically laugh at the phrase "evolution occurs" that annoy me. Why can't the debate be civilized and open-minded?
If someone wants to be an atheist than just come to terms with that and quit debating because nothing will convince you. If you want to be a Christian that stop arguing because we will get no where.
Go for the Heart
Moderator: Moderators
Post #61
As promised, here is one of the instances that presents the account of Genesis as literal:
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God.
The linage mentions several key Genesis individual. They are presented as real live people. You know, literal.
Now if the list wasn't suppose to be literal, just where did it change from fact to fiction?
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God.
The linage mentions several key Genesis individual. They are presented as real live people. You know, literal.
Now if the list wasn't suppose to be literal, just where did it change from fact to fiction?
-
MagusYanam
- Guru
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Providence, RI (East Side)
Post #62
Okay, that post didn't represent a 'history' in the literal sense. It presented a genealogy, which is a very sketchy field to begin with, especially going back 4000 years. There were Varangians, for example, who could supposedly trace their family trees back to Thor or Baldr or Freyr, yet we don't credit the Norse gods (as such) as having a literal historic truth. That's not to say that genealogies don't have value or merit, but rather to say they should be taken with a grain of salt.
Also, it is a misnomer to say Barnabus was a young-earth creationist, since creationism itself is a recent, reactionary movement rebelling against a particular aspect of Enlightenment thinking. Barnabus was speaking from a viewpoint common to the kerygmatic period - Christianity was then heavily concerned with the eschaton - but could not have rebelled against Enlightenment thinking because then there was no Enlightenment. Evolutionary theory, and thus creationism, did not exist. There was no debate - most people didn't really think about how the world came about.
The second quote does not seem to be Barnabus talking at all about the creation of man, but rather the legacy of imperfection humanity had inherited - 'for man is but earth which suffers' is the real conclusion, not 'from the face of the ground...' et cetera. And as for the third, a similar point follows. What is the context of the quote? What is he trying to say with this example? (I was tipped off by his use of 'For the scripture saith...') You can't just prooftext a kerygmatic writing trying to find justification that someone held a belief without taking the context into consideration. It just isn't done. (Believe me, I've tried, and it doesn't work.)
It doesn't matter that Genesis said nothing about evolution because that was not the point of the creation story! The creation story was meant to illustrate a different point. And that was the loss of innocence in man. Mankind was created good, but at the same time was capable of sin, resulting in an ambiguous nature. We have the capacity for good and ill, though not necessarily the capacity for telling good from ill. When man and woman had not yet eaten from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge thereof, they had been simple - they lived as God had them live. But when they ate, they lost that simplicity, and began to wonder at the nature of good and evil, and became ashamed.
This is the predicament of our species. We are moral beings with a dual nature and an innate confusion as to the definition of morality. We have gone from being simple beings of the creation to being capable of moral reason - we have eaten of the forbidden fruit. I am not saying the creation story has an account of evolution, but that it can mean something different entirely from the way in which you are reading it.
Also, it is a misnomer to say Barnabus was a young-earth creationist, since creationism itself is a recent, reactionary movement rebelling against a particular aspect of Enlightenment thinking. Barnabus was speaking from a viewpoint common to the kerygmatic period - Christianity was then heavily concerned with the eschaton - but could not have rebelled against Enlightenment thinking because then there was no Enlightenment. Evolutionary theory, and thus creationism, did not exist. There was no debate - most people didn't really think about how the world came about.
The second quote does not seem to be Barnabus talking at all about the creation of man, but rather the legacy of imperfection humanity had inherited - 'for man is but earth which suffers' is the real conclusion, not 'from the face of the ground...' et cetera. And as for the third, a similar point follows. What is the context of the quote? What is he trying to say with this example? (I was tipped off by his use of 'For the scripture saith...') You can't just prooftext a kerygmatic writing trying to find justification that someone held a belief without taking the context into consideration. It just isn't done. (Believe me, I've tried, and it doesn't work.)
It doesn't matter that Genesis said nothing about evolution because that was not the point of the creation story! The creation story was meant to illustrate a different point. And that was the loss of innocence in man. Mankind was created good, but at the same time was capable of sin, resulting in an ambiguous nature. We have the capacity for good and ill, though not necessarily the capacity for telling good from ill. When man and woman had not yet eaten from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge thereof, they had been simple - they lived as God had them live. But when they ate, they lost that simplicity, and began to wonder at the nature of good and evil, and became ashamed.
This is the predicament of our species. We are moral beings with a dual nature and an innate confusion as to the definition of morality. We have gone from being simple beings of the creation to being capable of moral reason - we have eaten of the forbidden fruit. I am not saying the creation story has an account of evolution, but that it can mean something different entirely from the way in which you are reading it.
Post #63
YEC wrote:
"I did notice that Genesis didn't mention a single thing aboout evolution...once again it appears quite obvious that the simple reading is special creation."
True enough. However, there are a lot of things that the Bible does not mention that today we consider true in one sense or another. A few off the top of my head:
Relativity
Quantum Mechanics
Algebra, Calclulus, and most other areas of mathematics.
Gravity, at least in the formulation provided by Newton.
Nuclear fusion, and its role in powering stars.
The earth's magnetic field.
Micro-organisms.
Computers.
I'm not sure why we would automatically exclude from consideration any idea that is not mentioned in the Bible. Even with respect to spiritual or moral considerations, there are a lot of ideas that are not mentioned in the Bible that seem to me to be perfectly acceptable ideas, at least for discussion. For example,
The idea of inalienable human rights, endowed by our creator to all human beings.
The idea that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. The biblical view (perhaps over-simplified) is that governments derive their authority from God. These do not, it seems to me, need to be mutually exclusive ideas (just like I don't think evolution and God as ultimate creator are mutually exclusive).
The existence of a multiplicity of Christian churches or denominations.
The existence of weapons of mass destruction and the potential consequence that all life on earth could be exterminated by the action of man. Yes, the Bible does talk about the eventual end of the earth, but my reading is that this is at the hand of God, and not the hand of man, unless you reinterpret the literal meaning of Revelation to say that God will work these acts through the hands of men. There are certainly those that believe in this possibility.
Not unlike the Constitution of the U.S., it seems to me that the Bible is written in a flexible enough way so that it can be reinterpreted to apply to new situations, and to speak truth to people throughout the ages, regardless of their underlying worldviews or personal or cultural histories. To me, this is one of the geniuses of the Bible.
"I did notice that Genesis didn't mention a single thing aboout evolution...once again it appears quite obvious that the simple reading is special creation."
True enough. However, there are a lot of things that the Bible does not mention that today we consider true in one sense or another. A few off the top of my head:
Relativity
Quantum Mechanics
Algebra, Calclulus, and most other areas of mathematics.
Gravity, at least in the formulation provided by Newton.
Nuclear fusion, and its role in powering stars.
The earth's magnetic field.
Micro-organisms.
Computers.
I'm not sure why we would automatically exclude from consideration any idea that is not mentioned in the Bible. Even with respect to spiritual or moral considerations, there are a lot of ideas that are not mentioned in the Bible that seem to me to be perfectly acceptable ideas, at least for discussion. For example,
The idea of inalienable human rights, endowed by our creator to all human beings.
The idea that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. The biblical view (perhaps over-simplified) is that governments derive their authority from God. These do not, it seems to me, need to be mutually exclusive ideas (just like I don't think evolution and God as ultimate creator are mutually exclusive).
The existence of a multiplicity of Christian churches or denominations.
The existence of weapons of mass destruction and the potential consequence that all life on earth could be exterminated by the action of man. Yes, the Bible does talk about the eventual end of the earth, but my reading is that this is at the hand of God, and not the hand of man, unless you reinterpret the literal meaning of Revelation to say that God will work these acts through the hands of men. There are certainly those that believe in this possibility.
Not unlike the Constitution of the U.S., it seems to me that the Bible is written in a flexible enough way so that it can be reinterpreted to apply to new situations, and to speak truth to people throughout the ages, regardless of their underlying worldviews or personal or cultural histories. To me, this is one of the geniuses of the Bible.
Post #64
magus:
It doesn't matter that Genesis said nothing about evolution because that was not the point of the creation story! The creation story was meant to illustrate a different point. And that was the loss of innocence in man. Mankind was created good, but at the same time was capable of sin, resulting in an ambiguous nature. We have the capacity for good and ill, though not necessarily the capacity for telling good from ill. When man and woman had not yet eaten from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge thereof, they had been simple - they lived as God had them live. But when they ate, they lost that simplicity, and began to wonder at the nature of good and evil, and became ashamed.
...if it doesn't really matter, then why mention the creation at all?
Once again if God used evolution why no simply say so? Is it that hard of a concept to understand?
It doesn't matter that Genesis said nothing about evolution because that was not the point of the creation story! The creation story was meant to illustrate a different point. And that was the loss of innocence in man. Mankind was created good, but at the same time was capable of sin, resulting in an ambiguous nature. We have the capacity for good and ill, though not necessarily the capacity for telling good from ill. When man and woman had not yet eaten from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge thereof, they had been simple - they lived as God had them live. But when they ate, they lost that simplicity, and began to wonder at the nature of good and evil, and became ashamed.
...if it doesn't really matter, then why mention the creation at all?
Once again if God used evolution why no simply say so? Is it that hard of a concept to understand?
Post #65
But the topic is creation...which the bible just so happens to mention.micatala wrote:YEC wrote:
"I did notice that Genesis didn't mention a single thing aboout evolution...once again it appears quite obvious that the simple reading is special creation."
True enough. However, there are a lot of things that the Bible does not mention that today we consider true in one sense or another. A few off the top of my head:
So considering that God mentions creation, if he used evolution then why not say so?
Something like, from the animals God made man.
Post #66
Yes, it is that hard of a concept to understand. We have lots of people even now who don't understand it, and therefore propose silly straw-man ideas that they can shoot down, thinking that this will disprove it.* And this is in an age when we know about genetics and molecular biology! When the bible was written--or if you prefer, when god handed it down to humans--they couldn't possibly have understood evolution. Of course it doesn't mention it!YEC wrote:...if it doesn't really matter, then why mention the creation at all?magus wrote: It doesn't matter that Genesis said nothing about evolution because that was not the point of the creation story! The creation story was meant to illustrate a different point. ...
Once again if God used evolution why no simply say so? Is it that hard of a concept to understand?
The most likely truth, of course, is that the bible is the written tribal lore from the particular group of people from whom it comes. Their purpose in developing their stories was to understand the origins of things--of themselves, of the world, of the plants and animals. Like all origin stories, they presented it in the context of things they knew about or could imagine. Not only did they have no knowledge of science as we know it now, but they were confined to a very small part of the globe. Remember, it took Darwin traveling around the world to gather enough data to force him to conclude, against all of his prior belief, that evolution must have happened. If you know only about your own part of the world, and you have no scientific knowledge, but you have an innate need to understand your origin, then you come up with something that you think makes sense. After generations of telling the tribal stories, they become Absolute Truth, accepted as a matter of course.
a) See the aboveYEC wrote:But the topic is creation...which the bible just so happens to mention.
So considering that God mentions creation, if he used evolution then why not say so?
Something like, from the animals God made man.
b) If he used bacteria and viruses to cause disease, why not say so? It would have save a lot of suffering if he'd just told us. If he used the brain as the seat of reason, why mislead us and tell us it's the heart? If he created the world as a sphere, twirling in space, and racing around the sun, why mislead us and tell us otherwise? There's rather a lot of stuff in there that doesn't fit the world as we know it--but fits very nicely with human understanding 2000 years ago.
The bottom line is this: we have a story (or a set of stories). It was written a very long time ago by (or handed down to) people whose experience of the world, and whose scientific understanding was limited. Therefore, its phrasing is limited to what they could handle. Rather than lock ourselves into a 2000-year-old mindset, we should praise god for using such cryptic metaphor that we can still derive spiritual value from something that is obviously not historically or scientifically accurate.
*like the bizarre notion that evolution occurs by gradual transmogrification of animals, so that "transitional fossils" have to display exactly intermediate forms of all traits, instead of the genetically correct notion of "mosaic" traits.
Panza llena, corazon contento
