Literal Cosmogony?

[Jack777]

"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies of the Bible, and insist on their literal interpretation in the midst of much clamour and opposition."

Sir Issac Newton

I am not making a case for this being about the time of the end, though it may or may not be so. However, I am pointing out that there are those who now insist upon a literal interpretation of the prophecies of the Bible. There is prophecy past, prophecy present, and prophecy future. I can tell you of a certainty that I insist upon a literal interpretation of Scripture and I am not alone nor have been. Isaac Newton did not think much of those who suggested God did not create the universe or was docile as many would have it.

The Higher Critics and those who espouse the error of The Theory of Evolution are not alone. They have had such people as Adolf Hitler, Herman Goering and Heinrich Himmler as their biggest fans.

Some who followed the Higher Critics had gotten to the point that they thought that they were smarter than Jesus, God. Interesting.

Gunkel informs us that he, like Theistic Evolutionists and Evolutionists, knew better than to believe the Bible as literally true. Interestingly he improved things over Wellhausen who contended the Old Testament was all myth. Gunkel only made the case for Genesis being myth. He wrote:

"There is no denying that there are legends in the Old Testament; consider for instance the stories of Samson and Jonah. Accordingly it is not a matter of belief or skepticism, but merely a matter of obtaining better knowledge, to examine whether the narratives of Genesis are history or legend.

The objection is raised that Jesus and the Apostles clearly considered these to be fact and not poetry. Suppose they did; the men of the New Testament are not presumed to have been exceptional men in such matters, but shared the point of view of their time. Hence we are not warranted in looking to the New Testament for a solution of questions in the literary history of the Old Testament."1

So, the followers of the Higher Critics and Evolutionists know more than their Creator.

1 Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis, The Biblical Saga and History, NY, NY: Schocken Books, Copyright 1964, Schocken Books, Inc.

[Constantine]

I think you have finally lost it.

You have fallen to the level of people like Jude3b who use arguments they know to be false and have been corrected many times. I have personally pointed out to you on more than one occasion that theistic evolutionist do not degrade God or the Bible.

You are intentionally making strawman attacks and I refuse to engage in debate with someone who cannot even honestly represent the other side and stop trying to slander TE's with your insane arguments that evolution made Hitler.

Ask yourself how Christian you are acting. Does God want you to tell falsehoods to support your viewpoint? Does He want you to slander good people because you disagree with them on this particular topic?

[Jack777]

Thank you for your reply. This tells me a lot. I appreciate it. I don't think you should debate me if you don't want to do so. I also do not expect you to agree. I think you do not. I do not mean each and every evolutionist, nor do I mean each and every person who attempts reconciling a theory that mitigates against God and calls it Theistic Evolution. You just do not like what I am saying because you hear the constant din of the mantras that have gone beyond mere belief for some but are "fact" when they are not. You might think about things though. I am okay with factual evidence that is a proof. Evolution does not prove many things people assume it does. It is a matter of belief.

Let me see, here... I notice you say my arguments are insane. Could you please defend your charge rationally or retract it? What factual evidence do you have to say my arguments are insane. Have you read Dawidowicz, Solzehitsyn, Hitler, Waite, or anyone that deals with these things in detail? How much do you know about Sanger and Eugenics? How much do you know about the Higher Critics, Astruc, Wellhausen, or whomever it is that you wish to defend?

Please cite evidence I am wrong. I notice citations are big on here, so cite away or retract your statement. I notice a characteristic of SOME Theistic Evolutionists and non-theistic evolutionists is the ad hominem argument and emotional rhetoric that is almost like code language. It is so odd that your speech is incoherent on an objective basis.

I am not asking you to debate me, just prove your charge. I notice the revered ones by reason of being high priests can treat people like trash and act like fools but that is good because you agree with them. Tsk tsk, I awlays think scientists will be rational but alas, they are not as a rule. I stated most scientists are like three-year olds emotionally and someone took me to task on it. Some are showing it. Not you of course.

[Constantine]

Well I'm going to go against my own advice and try debating to see if we can atleast clear some things up.

I do not mean each and every evolutionist, nor do I mean each and every person who attempts reconciling a theory that mitigates against God and calls it Theistic Evolution

What I respond with is that a theory of how biology works does not mitigate against God. Biological evolution does no harm to God nor any dishonor. I think instead it shows God's handiwork and his genius and ultimatley giving glory to God. I believe that theisitic evolution is consistent with the Bible, and does not undermine it nor its authority. There might be a minority of very liberal Christians who disregard most of the Old Testament but they are the minority. Most TE's like myself, George Murphy, and Glenn Morton certainly do not disregard the Bible but instead believe that theistic evolution is the most Biblical and theologically consistent view.

You just do not like what I am saying because you hear the constant din of the mantras that have gone beyond mere belief for some but are "fact" when they are not.

No, I do not like what you are saying because it misrepresents what most TE's actually believes and trys to slander them by associating them with Nazi's.

You might think about things though. I am okay with factual evidence that is a proof. Evolution does not prove many things people assume it does. It is a matter of belief.

Then you need to do more research. What courses in biology have you taken and did they discuss evolution? What materials that provide evidence for evolution have you read?

Let me see, here... I notice you say my arguments are insane. Could you please defend your charge rationally or retract it? What factual evidence do you have to say my arguments are insane. Have you read Dawidowicz, Solzehitsyn, Hitler, Waite, or anyone that deals with these things in detail? How much do you know about Sanger and Eugenics? How much do you know about the Higher Critics, Astruc, Wellhausen, or whomever it is that you wish to defend?

Trying to put a moral value on a scientific theory is an invalid argument. Scientific theories are morally nuetral. Otherwise you could blame those damn "Newtonists" who make bombs and rockets that kill people for daring to follow the theory of gravity. Or how about nuclear physics? It has killed 300,000 Japanese civilians, so then it must be evil too.

The truth is that evil people do evil things....because they are evil. Not because of a theory in a subdiscipline in biology. People have used scientific theories throughout history to justify horrific things. Infact they have used anything to justify horrific things. The Islamic fundalmentalists running around murdering innocent civilians in terrorists attacks use "Allah" to justify it. Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler anyway, used the name of the State to justify his killings.

How about Saddam Hussein? He murdered 1.3 million people. Innocent men, women, and children. He raped and tortured countless more. He justified it as necessary for his own security.

All atrocities throughout history will be falsly "justified" by the people who commit them. If that justification doesn't work then they'll use another. Hitler hated the Jews not because of Darwin but because Hitler was an asshole.

As a final summation of this point...

Ideas and scientific theories don't kill people, people kill people

Please cite evidence I am wrong. I notice citations are big on here, so cite away or retract your statement. I notice a characteristic of SOME Theistic Evolutionists and non-theistic evolutionists is the ad hominem argument and emotional rhetoric that is almost like code language. It is so odd that your speech is incoherent on an objective basis.

I am usually a bit anal about citations myself, but in this case I'm just pointing out logically fallacies. Oh speaking of which what is the source of your Isaac Newton quote? Just curious cause I'd like to read what else he thought about the subject.

I stated most scientists are like three-year olds emotionally and someone took me to task on it. Some are showing it. Not you of course

I'm not a scientist, just a student for now. And if I was acting like a three-year old then atleast my age would be a good excuse :teeth:

[Jack777]

constantine,

I am sure you are right that you and grmorton, and George Murphy think that TE is the best way to honor God. If you did not care you would not be posting in reply to me. If you guys did not love God, it would be evident. Why does pointing out flaws inherent in something go to the person, not the idea for you and others, when that is not it? I happen to think fact is fact and conjecture and hypotheses are conjecture and hypotheses. Hypothesis is not on the same level as direct Revelation from God to us as is found in the Bible.

You might take it that I am trying to slander "them." I would point out that before I ever heard of this board, I noticed the correlations I presented. I cannot help it if the Nazis happened to appropriate these things and were a product of the culture and thinking of their time and influenced by things from before their time. It is so. In some measure, Goring was right to say he and the rest of them were putting into practice things that were accepted as the best thinking on matters. There were differences of course and that was not all. Someone rightly pointed out men of the Higher Criticism such as Barth and Bonhoeffer were the ones to step forward in opposition to the Nazis. This is not something in a nice package with a pretty bow all neat. Confusion is started because people do not know they were also occultists and think the Nazis were Christians. Does that answer in part your misgivings?


constantine wrote:

"Ideas and scientific theories don't kill people, people kill people"


Exactly correct. Someone asked if I thought the Theory of Evolution is evil because some have used it to displace God, replace God and I said "no."

What is it you want me to study?

I do not think that we are descended from monkeys and have seen no evidence that can be called scientific proof that people are descended from monkeys.

Even if evolution were proved true and I had to say I am wrong, part of what I am saying is that there is a danger that did manifest itself from some people with good motives and intentions and some with bad motives and intentions.

Most people who would be described as TE or following the Higher Criticism are nice, and very caring.

I notice personalization is difficult to avoid since many arguments are based on group affinity (cliques) and have not much to do with fact often on here.

I am not ascribing moral value to the Theory of Evolution in toto. You are defending a theory that people thought would disprove God's existence and I know that is not your purpose from what you have said and what others have said. Why is it wrong to point those things out?

I am not chronicling what things in my life on this planet have led me to think as I do in a fashion that recalls everything I have read about evolution.

You are the one defending it, prove it to me.

[kofh2u]

Jack777,
I think what Constantine is saying is that you are adversarial in failing to note that your hypothesis has no assumed legitamacy over the hypothesis of TE.

Both are "guesses" about the way Genesis may be read and what Genesis is literally and literarily trying to tell us.

Your hypothesis does not include a detailed explanation of "how" God formed the universe/iving organisms.

TE does include the details (evolutionary theories) explanation of "how" God formed the universe/iving organisms.

Constantine is saying you are childishly insisting that you "know," when both you and TE people only can say they "believe" that they understand what Genesis means.

Their is nothing "literal" in Genesis. It is literature. As such, it must be examined from the veiw of literary criticism, ignoring religious importances.

Literary criticism allows for your comments, but it also entertains the idea that Genesis is analogy, or metaphor, or a long simile, meaning it is like the actual creative process, but not meant to be considered in exactitude.

I reco that you add "IMO" before each post, and then just tell it as you see it with attacking other views.


Like, for me, the major two issues are that the 24 hour day was not created until "yom" 4.

The second sticky point is that "yom," or day in Hebrew, really means any extended duration of time."
So, the seven yoms may well refer to the seven ERAS. IMO.

[Jack777]

Memories.

Thanks.

I had a priest tell me not to be childish and believe that the Bible is the Word of God. He informed me it is not true and that was about 30 years ago almost to the month. He told me why I should not believe the Bible literally.

When I was in the 7th grade my teacher informed us the Bible is not true as if people has just found out. I was impressed, but then I was all of about 11 years old. My high school teacher for Humanities taught how the Bible is not true. I have had a lot of good people let me know how to read literature and how the Bible has the same veracity as any other book.

My Mom told me that she thinks the Bible is 100% true when I was in the 7th grade. At the time I was not saved and just put it in the back of my mind.

I have since found out it is true, it is not a guess. You read it on the surface level in the KJV you learn things. The NEB is my most comfortable version as literature, but it leaves out the structure of the narrative, so not as much is there to learn. Read the Hebrew and begin to understand the language and I learn more. Through all of that, the Holy Spirit is my tutor. He is the Tutor for people. I am not guessing it is true.

I think people do not learn things because they figure they are reading stuff that is baloney. Some won't believe things if there is not some scientific rationale they can hang onto. If you do not trust God so much you do not learn much.

God says we are to seek His Wisdom, His Understanding, and His Knowledge and not to lean on our own understanding. That is the ticket. If you think that is childish, then so be it. I have had that leveled at me many times and actually expect it.

Science is science and part of how we observe reality. I tend to look for rocks at outcrops. I did lab work in a lab.

[rogero]

...

What is it you want me to study?

A modern university level biology text? Standard science journals like Scientific American, Nature, and the like?



I do not think that we are descended from monkeys and have seen no evidence that can be called scientific proof that people are descended from monkeys.


This one quote shows how ignorant you are of the theory of evolution. Do you really think that biological evolution asserts that Homo sapiens is descended from monkeys?


Even if evolution were proved true and I had to say I am wrong, part of what I am saying is that there is a danger that did manifest itself from some people with good motives and intentions and some with bad motives and intentions.

Your use of the word "prove" also shows your ignorance of scientific method. Inductive reasoning does not "prove" anything true. Careful use of language is very important in any discussion of this sort.

Your second sentence is just vague rhetoric. Who exactly has "good" motives and intentions and who has "bad" motives and intentions?

And, btw, holding you accountable for what you say about science and logic is not a bad motive nor a bad intention.

For example, do you think holding you accountable for asserting Earth was 1-1.5 Ga is a bad motive or intention?



...
I am not ascribing moral value to the Theory of Evolution in toto.

Sure seems like you are.



You are defending a theory that people thought would disprove God's existence and I know that is not your purpose from what you have said and what others have said. Why is it wrong to point those things out?

I don't think it was Darwin's purpose to disprove God's existence. This is utter nonsense.



I am not chronicling what things in my life on this planet have led me to think as I do in a fashion that recalls everything I have read about evolution.



You are the one defending it, prove it to me. Again, look up the definition of scientific method and try to understand that your use of the word "prove" here is pure rhetoric.


BTW, Doug, I plan to start a thread to try to figure out precisely what your scientific view on orgins indeed is. You are old Earth, you accept speciation after niche destruction and vacation -- yet, yet you have not made it clear at all why you are bashing evolution as means of creation. Your constant and illogical conflation of science and philosophy is extremely confusing. And, you are even confusing about your scriptural hermeneutic. Do you read the Bible literally or literarily? You said it both ways.

Be prepared to answer some questions in the next few weeks and be able to defend your confusingly cryptic mixture of Fundamentalism, Old Earth, mainstream geology, and at least some biological evolution. All I know is that you have been confusing the living heck out of me the past two months. It's high time for some real answers, not snippy little soundbites, cryptic and sometimes contradictory obfuscations, and voluminous posts on the evils of the world and how "evolution" was responsible for these.

Roger

[rogero]

...

Science is science and part of how we observe reality. I tend to look for rocks at outcrops. I did lab work in a lab.


So what is your view of reality? Does God allow us to study creation, or does he hide stuff from us so that we must accept a certain interpretation of scripture to be able to understand nature?

I not only "tend" to look for rocks at outcrops, I actually do look at them.

The last bolded sentence is tautological. Where else would you do lab work?

[Constantine]

Why does pointing out flaws inherent in something go to the person, not the idea for you and others, when that is not it?

If all you were doing was arguing on the facts of the theory of evolution then that would be fine. I love discussing origins, thats why I'm here. But you go beyond that...to be specific there was one line in your OP that really got me going:

The Higher Critics and those who espouse the error of The Theory of Evolution are not alone. They have had such people as Adolf Hitler, Herman Goering and Heinrich Himmler as their biggest fans.

What facts of biology, geology, or paleontology are in this argument? none. This argument was trying to discredit evolution be trying to associate its proponents with Nazi's. That is a personal attack. My grandfather was shot three times on D-day trying to defeat the Nazi's, and here you are saying they are my fans? How insulting do you think that is?

Again it has nothing to do with the facts of science. It was a logically flawed attempt at a guilty by association argument.

You said you did not mean all evolutionists and TE's yet you said:

So, the followers of the Higher Critics and Evolutionists know more than their Creator.


But where did you make the distinction? Also your personal view of the theology of a few radical liberals is another logically flawed argument. You are not arguing on any scientific facts or even Scriptual facts. You are again trying the guilt by association falacy.

What is it you want me to study?


Well lets start with the big stuff like the reptile to mammal transition. The fish to tetrapod (a personal favorite) transition, the dinosaurian ancestry of birds, the ever growing list of hominid fossils and....observed instances of beneficial mutations that add new benefitial traits.

There are many more transitions in the fossil record (like the landmammal to whale, and the elephant line and so on) but those are the ones I'm most familiar with personally.

I am not ascribing moral value to the Theory of Evolution in toto. You are defending a theory that people thought would disprove God's existence and I know that is not your purpose from what you have said and what others have said. Why is it wrong to point those things out?


Anyone who thinks that evolution is an argument against God doesn't have any business discussing the topic. Darwin himself was a theist/diest.

Also what someones personal philosophical opinion is on a theory doesn't have any relavence to the theory's accuracy.

I do not think that we are descended from monkeys and have seen no evidence that can be called scientific proof that people are descended from monkeys.


I would agree. Homo sapiens and great apes have a common acestor, one did not come from the other.

Even if evolution were proved true and I had to say I am wrong, part of what I am saying is that there is a danger that did manifest itself from some people with good motives and intentions and some with bad motives and intentions.

Not really sure what your're talking about here, but I'll take a guess. Are you saying that if you were wrong and evolution was true that some people would use that as a weapon against Christianity? Even if that were the case, don't you think your arguing against evolution in error would be an even greater weapon if you were wrong? I certainly think so.


You are the one defending it, prove it to me.

Actually in this thread I'm responding to your arguments. If you wish to have evidnece for evolution argued for you I suggest making or joining a thread that focuses on a specific factual issue. The debate over origins stretches from biology to physics to geology to chemistry. Pick a topic and I'll do my best to argue my side.

You can't ever really "prove" with 100% certainty any scientific view.

[Jack777]

Well constantine, I notice you loaded up on plenty of statements saying I have proved my ignorance.

I had to take plenty of courses in science on a college, graduate, and post graduate level. I even have read a couple of article in National Geographic, but so what? I see squirrels everyday and chimps have a sense of fair play. So what?

One of the things you base my ignorance on is my assertion that you may not or cannot prove that people descended from monkeys.

I was unaware that no one that subscribes to the Theory of Evolution has ever, ever thought mankind was descended from primates in any way shape or form.

Thanks for the information.

You admit you cannot prove evolution in toto. That is one of my points.

[Constantine]

Well constantine, I notice you loaded up on plenty of statements saying I have proved my ignoranceI said nothing of the sort. It was Rogero who repeatedly called you ignorant, I merely take issue with how you are arguing your views. I try my best to not be offensive, though at times I may seem blunt.

I do not condone Rogero's debating style, being insulting to the otherside never helps.

I had to take plenty of courses in science on a college, graduate, and post graduate level. I even have read a couple of article in National Geographic, but so what? I see squirrels everyday and chimps have a sense of fair play. So what?What kind of classes was my question. I'm currently in a college biology course for example, what level of biology do you have or what other avenues of study have you commenced (specifically regarding biology) in studying evolution? Like what books have you read on either side and stuff like that.

One of the things you base my ignorance on is my assertion that you may not or cannot prove that people descended from monkeys.
I do not believe you are ignorant, I think you are intentionally using strawman attacks. I stated in my previous post (as did someone else in this thread) that no one places monkeys as human ancestors. Instead it is viewed that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor that split off some 12-15 million years ago.

was unaware that no one that subscribes to the Theory of Evolution has ever, ever thought mankind was descended from primates in any way shape or form.
Now I didn't say that. What I did say:

I would agree. Homo sapiens and great apes have a common acestor, one did not come from the otherHomo sapiens and Great Apes are both primates, biologically speaking. Thus they had a common ancestor that was also a primate. You have misunderstood or misrepresented what I said.

You admit you cannot prove evolution in toto. That is one of my pointsNow you are again twisting what I said. I did not specify evolution, I said you can not absolutely prove ANY scientific theory. That includes Relativity and Newton's theory of motion. To know anything as an absolute truth you would have to be omniscient. I admit I am not omniscient.

You seem rather defensive in that last post. I'm not trying to antagonize or offend you. Just trying to defend my view. I apologize if you did take offense to anything I said, it was not my intent.

If you wish to discuss the factual merits of evolution I suggest doing it in the Natural Science forum. I and others will be more than glad to present to you all the evidence we know of.

[Jack777]

constantine, I got the two of you confused on the ignorant part. I wonder why I should submit a resume to experess my opinion. I don't think I will. I gave my arguments about the influence of the ideas of evolution and higher criticism and people chose to not read them. I am sorry for whoever got shot by Nazis, but had they not gotten shot my argument would remain the same. Being shot does not make history different that it is now.

[Constantine]

I wonder why I should submit a resume to experess my opinion. I don't think I will.

You said you based your opinions on your knowledge and experience so I was wondering what it was. I wasn't badgering you about what degrees you have.

I gave my arguments about the influence of the ideas of evolution and higher criticism and people chose to not read them

I read them, and pointed out the logically fallacies in those arguments. You ignored and dodged what I said and then got all defensive.

I am sorry for whoever got shot by Nazis, but had they not gotten shot my argument would remain the same. Being shot does not make history different that it is now.

You were being slanderous against proponents of a different view than your own. Instead of arguing the facts of biology, geology, and physics you tried to use a false "guilt by association" tactic by blaming Nazism on evolution.

I pointed out the fact that your arguments were false and irrelavent to the issue. And history was made alot different when people get shot. Like how about Lincoln or Kennedy. As if that had anything to do with this discussion.

You have some kind of irrational fear of evolution. You seem to think it is some kind of threat to Christianity and instead of researching it fairly you assume it must be wrong because you think it is "bad" so you ignore pleas of reason from myself and others and continue your misguided crusade against a single sub discipline of biology.

There is no reason to fear evolution. What you should fear is being blinded by bias and making yourself look foolish and by extension all of Christianity.

[Jack777]

I don't have an irrational fear of evolution. You did not point out any logical fallacies.

[rogero]

I don't have an irrational fear of evolution. You did not point out any logical fallacies.
Then perhaps you can explain why you have trashed the concept of biological evolution so often and so emphatically in your posts? Would you like for me to dredge up your copious quotations that denigrate the concept? I have a thread somewhere that summarizes your opinions, but I need to add your most recent "evolution is fancy" quote.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you can accept a billion year + biosphere in continuous existence with episodes of mass extinction followed by speciation and yet (and this is way beyond the pale)... reject and even vilify the concept of biological evolution -- to wit, common descent with modification.

When will you give us an answer to my question in the previous paragraph, Jack???? --- and I mean one that doesn't dance around the issues and involve the publication of more tiresome threads disseminating your thoughts and opinions that you've stored up over your 55 years on this Earth and with which you feel the need to regale us all in lieu of clear explanations of your views.

R

[Jack777]

I notice you have managed to avoid the thread topic in admirable fashion. I find it always comes down to personalizing attacks and accusative questioning and this seems to be the deal with some people.