Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Holding their feet to the fire ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Humans ARE apes, just like humans are primates, and humans are mammals, chordates, animals, eukarya.

    And BIG DEAL what Hitler thought about anything.

    He was a vegetarian and loved his dog.

    K54
    Hey, if YOU want to be regarded as an "ape" then be my guest - I am no one to stand in your way.

    But that does not grant you license to consider ALL humans as "apes".

    How about it? Someone comes up to your mom, son or daughter and says, "You are an APE!"
    How would you feel about that?

    Me? My response would be, "Your momma is an ape!"

    Jorge

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      It has been my long experience that INVARIABLY when something has to be changed it is the BIBLE that takes the 'hit' (gets distorted) so that it 'agrees' with the decrees of the "scientific establishment". If you have a counter-example to that claim, especially when Evolution is involved, then please provide it.
      I would say your long experience must be limited. In my experience, I've seen three approaches: Reject the bible, reject the science, or modify either one (or both) to make them fit. In the case of evolution, the latter approach has meant reinterpreting parts of the bible so that evolution can be God's chosen method of achieving His will.

      Refer back to the word "distortion" - defined several posts ago. It's definitely a distortion because now the Bible is forced to say something that it doesn't say when using proper exegesis / hermeneutics.
      In light of these three approaches, you seem to be saying that those who want their bible and their science at the same time, are not using proper exegesis, which properly consists of rejecting any science with which a particular reading of the bible is incompatible.

      In addition, the distortion propagates throughout the rest of Scripture so that now other Bible verses must ALSO be distorted (again, refer to the definition of that term) in order to make it into a pseudo-consistent text. When that doesn't work simply eliminate some of the text altogether! In case you didn't know, many Theistic Evolutionists do exactly that by 'tossing out' Genesis 1 through 11 in various ways.
      I think this is quite so. Religious scientists (and there are many) tend to regard themselves as learning the mind of God by diligently studying His works. And where His works SEEM inconsistent with His word, the usual attitude is that His works are right there for the looking, while His word was given to a primitive people totally lacking in the understanding necessary to provide a meaningful context to explain how the universe actually works. And then rephrased repeatedly in a series of translations like game of telephone.

      But the underlying presumption is that God told the ancient Israelites the Truth as best they could understand it, and our task today is to figure out what God would have said to scientists today, given THEIR particular cultural context and breadth of knowledge.

      This case is air-tight and rock-solid. The only question is if you're willing to accept it.
      I think we are all willing to accept that you fall into the second group, regarding science as either incorrect, incomplete, or misguided insofar as it conflicts with your reading of one translation of the ancient texts.
      Last edited by phank; 09-22-2014, 05:11 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Hey, if YOU want to be regarded as an "ape" then be my guest - I am no one to stand in your way.

        But that does not grant you license to consider ALL humans as "apes".

        How about it? Someone comes up to your mom, son or daughter and says, "You are an APE!"
        How would you feel about that?

        Me? My response would be, "Your momma is an ape!"

        Jorge
        Of course, I think the rest of us understand this. "Ape" has two distinct meanings. The taxonomic meaning describes a particular clade within the primate clade, and by convention and definition includes humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. The pejorative meaning has nothing to do with taxonomy or biology, and is intended as an insult implying that someone is uncivilized, unintelligent, and subhuman. Taxonomically, all humans (and all chimps, gorillas, etc.) are apes. Pejoratively, only those you disagree with are apes.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Hey, if YOU want to be regarded as an "ape" then be my guest - I am no one to stand in your way.

          But that does not grant you license to consider ALL humans as "apes".

          How about it? Someone comes up to your mom, son or daughter and says, "You are an APE!"
          How would you feel about that?

          Me? My response would be, "Your momma is an ape!"

          Jorge
          Jorge, since we're good buddies, how's 'bout you do me a favor?

          Tell us 1) your definition of "ape" and 2) the actual scientific definition of "ape".

          Cool?

          K54

          Comment


          • Interestingly, the person who first classed humans as apes wasn't an evolutionist but was a creationist -- Carl or Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and modern scientific classification. YECs even classify him as one of the "World's Greatest Creation Scientists."

            Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and regarded by YECs as the father of the modern creationist movement, gushed that Linnaeus was
            "a man of great piety and respect for the Scriptures. One of his main goals in systematizing the tremendous varieties of living creatures was to attempt to delineate the original Genesis ‘kinds’."

            Anyhow... back in 1747 he told the famous explorer and geographer, Johann Georg Gmelin, that he didn't know whether he should "call man ape or vice versa."

            1747. That was over six decades before Charles Darwin was even born. In fact it was nearly 20 years before Robert Darwin (Charles' father) was born.

            A half dozen years after his remark to Gmelin, Linnaeus remarked that "even to this day scientists search in vain for any distinguishing mark by which the Apes can be separated from humans."

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • It has been my long experience that INVARIABLY when something has to be changed it is the BIBLE that takes the 'hit' (gets distorted) so that it 'agrees' with the decrees of the "scientific establishment". If you have a counter-example to that claim, especially when Evolution is involved, then please provide it.
              I understand what you are saying now. Well again, I haven't dug too deeply into this debate or what the majority of Theistic Evolutionists claim. So I would not be able to give a sufficient counter claim (if there is one).

              Refer back to the word "distortion" - defined several posts ago. It's definitely a distortion because now the Bible is forced to say something that it doesn't say when using proper exegesis / hermeneutics. In addition, the distortion propagates throughout the rest of Scripture so that now other Bible verses must ALSO be distorted (again, refer to the definition of that term) in order to make it into a pseudo-consistent text. When that doesn't work simply eliminate some of the text altogether! In case you didn't know, many Theistic Evolutionists do exactly that by 'tossing out' Genesis 1 through 11 in various ways.

              This case is air-tight and rock-solid. The only question is if you're willing to accept it.
              Yes. I did look at your definition of "distortion". I must say though that your definition casts a very wide net. More so than the dictionary definition. Which was the one I was using. But I just don't believe that the hypothesis is a distortion because it is not forcing the text to say anything. Just inferring from it. So, if the Bible says that God told the earth to create vegetation and animals, and Evolution teaches that vegetation and animals were created by the earth, where is the distortion? What in your view is proper exegesis/hermeneutics for those verses?

              Looks like a minor misunderstanding (on both our parts) that is now cleared up.
              Yeah. Sorry about that.
              Last edited by Jesse; 09-22-2014, 11:13 PM.
              "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

              Comment


              • BTW -- Jesse, welcome to the Natural Science Forum!

                It's one wacky ride -- and kinda fun if you can take it.

                K54

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Interestingly, the person who first classed humans as apes wasn't an evolutionist but was a creationist -- Carl or Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and modern scientific classification. YECs even classify him as one of the "World's Greatest Creation Scientists."

                  Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and regarded by YECs as the father of the modern creationist movement, gushed that Linnaeus was
                  "a man of great piety and respect for the Scriptures. One of his main goals in systematizing the tremendous varieties of living creatures was to attempt to delineate the original Genesis ‘kinds’."

                  Anyhow... back in 1747 he told the famous explorer and geographer, Johann Georg Gmelin, that he didn't know whether he should "call man ape or vice versa."

                  1747. That was over six decades before Charles Darwin was even born. In fact it was nearly 20 years before Robert Darwin (Charles' father) was born.

                  A half dozen years after his remark to Gmelin, Linnaeus remarked that "even to this day scientists search in vain for any distinguishing mark by which the Apes can be separated from humans."
                  It doesn't matter if Linnaeus had been one of the Apostles - was he infallible?

                  Got'ta love your less-than-honest tactic: trumpeting Linnaeus' credentials and high esteem among Christian Biblical Creationists so as to elevate his (incorrect) opinion as "evidence" that man and apes are indistinguishable.

                  Many great men past and present have said/done things that were s-t-o-o-o-p-i-d and w-r-o-n-g.
                  So you're committing several logical fallacies here not to mention less-than-forthright argumentation.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                    I understand what you are saying now. Well again, I haven't dug too deeply into this debate or what the majority of Theistic Evolutionists claim. So I would not be able to give a sufficient counter claim (if there is one).
                    No problem. In one way or another I've been at this for over four decades and counting. Of course, that doesn't mean much because I could have my own personal agenda and be wrong about this or that. You have to do your own research and meditations and prayer. Assuming that you do this diligently and honestly (next to prayer seeking for guidance, honesty is the most important element in your quest), in the end you will find that I haven't lied nor exaggerated on any point.



                    Yes. I did look at your definition of "distortion". I must say though that your definition casts a very wide net. More so than the dictionary definition. Which was the one I was using. But I just don't believe that the hypothesis is a distortion because it is not forcing the text to say anything. Just inferring from it. So, if the Bible says that God told the earth to create vegetation and animals, and Evolution teaches that vegetation and animals were created by the earth, where is the distortion? What in your view is proper exegesis/hermeneutics for those verses?
                    I agree with what you say about the definition that I use for "distortion". It is a definition that I have fashioned and customized over time ("customized" to apply specifically to the Creation-Evolution debate). Even though it is my own, if you research many dictionaries and sources you will find that it is reasonable. I've merely generalized the concept of "distortion". As for your last two questions above ...

                    The first is easy to answer: Just pick up your Bible (hopefully a A1611KJV but NASB, NIV, NKJV will be suitable here) and read the creation history in Genesis. Here is a bit of what you run into (there are many more, these are just to give you the idea):


                    Evolution......................................Genesis
                    Sun before earth.............................Earth before sun
                    Dry land before sea..........................Sea before dry land
                    Atmosphere before sea.....................Sea before atmosphere
                    Sun before light on earth...................Light on earth before sun
                    Stars before earth............................Earth before stars
                    Sea creatures before land plants.........Land plants before sea creatures
                    Land animals before trees..................Trees before land animals
                    Death before man.............................Man before death
                    Thorns and thistles before man...........Man before thorns and thistles
                    Insects before flowering plants...........Flowering plants before insects
                    Sun before plants.............................Plants before sun


                    As I said, these are just a few of many more. So YOU have to decide: do you accept the Bible's acccount or do you reject it? The BIGGIE in this list is death before man versus man before death. Theologically, that is a MAJOR issue - insurmountable, actually. See the following link for more details and facts:
                    https://answersingenesis.org/why-doe...vents-matters/

                    Your second question is harder to answer, especially in a comprehensive manner. It involves understanding - within the framework of orthodox Christian theology - what exegesis and eisegesis are, what hermeneutics is, the introduction of extra-biblical data, the role of language and translation and other relevant topics.

                    Essentially the aim is to obtain from the Scripture precisely what God intended - nothing more and nothing less. An honest grammatical-historical approach where Scripture is almost-exclusively used to interpret Scripture has been proven to be the proper approach. This had been the gold-standard for centuries, until an "enlightened, modern/post-modern" world started taking over. Then vain philosophies, revisionism, "Scientism" and other perversions entered the scene - it's been swirling down into the toilet ever since. Out of time ... got'ta go.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      It doesn't matter if Linnaeus had been one of the Apostles - was he infallible?
                      No, of course not. But in this instance the evidence both morphological and genetic indicates that he was correct.

                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Got'ta love your less-than-honest tactic: trumpeting Linnaeus' credentials and high esteem among Christian Biblical Creationists so as to elevate his (incorrect) opinion as "evidence" that man and apes are indistinguishable.
                      Given the YEC propensity to characterize this as some sort of "Darwinist" plot I was making sure that it was clear that it is most definitely not the case. The fact is that the idea comes squarely from the creationist camp from someone who wasn't on the fringe but held in high regard.

                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Many great men past and present have said/done things that were s-t-o-o-o-p-i-d and w-r-o-n-g.
                      So you're committing several logical fallacies here not to mention less-than-forthright argumentation.
                      Again, as I already noted the evidence continues to reveal that Linnaeus wasn't being "s-t-o-o-p-i-d and w-r-o-n-g" but was indeed correct.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by jorge View Post

                        essentially the aim is to obtain from the scripture precisely what god intended Jorge already believes - nothing more and nothing less.

                        Fixed if for you Jorge.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post


                          Evolution......................................Genesis
                          Sun before earth.............................Earth before sun
                          Dry land before sea..........................Sea before dry land
                          Atmosphere before sea.....................Sea before atmosphere
                          Sun before light on earth...................Light on earth before sun
                          Stars before earth............................Earth before stars
                          Sea creatures before land plants.........Land plants before sea creatures
                          Land animals before trees..................Trees before land animals
                          Death before man.............................Man before death
                          Thorns and thistles before man...........Man before thorns and thistles
                          Insects before flowering plants...........Flowering plants before insects
                          Sun before plants.............................Plants before sun
                          Um, Jorge? The vast majority of those things you listed aren't part of what evolution says but rather is what various scientific disciplines completely independent of evolution has revealed.

                          This reveals something that I have noted before -- YECs of Jorge's stripe don't just have a problem with evolution, they have a problem with science in general.

                          They don't like biology and genetics because they provide evidence that demonstrates evolution. Same thing for botany and zoology. These YECs hate geology and paleontology because they provide evidence that demonstrates that the earth is incredibly ancient. Similarly, they detest astronomy and cosmology because they provide evidence that demonstrates that the universe is even far more ancient. And these YECs loathe physics because it provides the means of dating things and demonstrating that both are older than YEC dogma allows.

                          Perhaps one day, these folks will finally open their eyes and realize that the creation accounts aren't meant to conveying a science lesson. As the renown Old Testament scholar and expert on Genesis, John H. Walton, states in his "Lost World of Genesis One"

                          If cosmic geology is culturally descriptive rather than revealed truth, it takes its place among many other biblical examples of culturally relative notions. For example, in the ancient world people believed the seat of intelligence, emotion and personhood was in the internal organs, particularly the heart, but also the liver, kidneys and intestines. Many Bible translations use the English word "mind" when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails, showing the ways in which language and culture interrelated. In modern language we still refer to the heart metaphorically as the seat of emotion. In the ancient world this was not metaphor, but physiology. Yet we must notice that when God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain. Instead, he adopted the language of the culture to communicate in terms they understood. The idea that people think with their hearts describes physiology in ancient terms for the communication of other matters; it is not revelation concerning physiology.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • No problem. In one way or another I've been at this for over four decades and counting. Of course, that doesn't mean much because I could have my own personal agenda and be wrong about this or that. You have to do your own research and meditations and prayer. Assuming that you do this diligently and honestly (next to prayer seeking for guidance, honesty is the most important element in your quest), in the end you will find that I haven't lied nor exaggerated on any point.
                            Well, I will definitely have to do more research so I can see what these major differences are.

                            I agree with what you say about the definition that I use for "distortion". It is a definition that I have fashioned and customized over time ("customized" to apply specifically to the Creation-Evolution debate). Even though it is my own, if you research many dictionaries and sources you will find that it is reasonable. I've merely generalized the concept of "distortion". As for your last two questions above ...

                            The first is easy to answer: Just pick up your Bible (hopefully a A1611KJV but NASB, NIV, NKJV will be suitable here) and read the creation history in Genesis. Here is a bit of what you run into (there are many more, these are just to give you the idea):


                            Evolution......................................Gen esis
                            Sun before earth.............................Earth before sun
                            Dry land before sea..........................Sea before dry land
                            Atmosphere before sea.....................Sea before atmosphere
                            Sun before light on earth...................Light on earth before sun
                            Stars before earth............................Earth before stars
                            Sea creatures before land plants.........Land plants before sea creatures
                            Land animals before trees..................Trees before land animals
                            Death before man.............................Man before death
                            Thorns and thistles before man...........Man before thorns and thistles
                            Insects before flowering plants...........Flowering plants before insects
                            Sun before plants.............................Plants before sun


                            As I said, these are just a few of many more. So YOU have to decide: do you accept the Bible's account or do you reject it? The BIGGIE in this list is death before man versus man before death. Theologically, that is a MAJOR issue - insurmountable, actually. See the following link for more details and facts:
                            https://answersingenesis.org/why-doe...vents-matters/
                            I did go and look into your timeline. I found it to be somewhat inaccurate with regard to the order of events that I found from other sources on the subject. If you look here, here, and here you will see there was quite a bit that was left out of AIG's timeline. The chronology from those links I supplied seem to be much more accurate with what I already know of Evolution.

                            I do indeed accept the Bible's account of events. I just still have not seen where there are many inconsistencies with it's version of events and what Evolution has to say about it. Seems very compatible to me.

                            As for death and man, I have not look into that. But it is of course a big one. I will have to do further study on that question.

                            Your second question is harder to answer, especially in a comprehensive manner. It involves understanding - within the framework of orthodox Christian theology - what exegesis and eisegesis are, what hermeneutics is, the introduction of extra-biblical data, the role of language and translation and other relevant topics.

                            Essentially the aim is to obtain from the Scripture precisely what God intended - nothing more and nothing less. An honest grammatical-historical approach where Scripture is almost-exclusively used to interpret Scripture has been proven to be the proper approach. This had been the gold-standard for centuries, until an "enlightened, modern/post-modern" world started taking over. Then vain philosophies, revisionism, "Scientism" and other perversions entered the scene - it's been swirling down into the toilet ever since. Out of time ... got'ta go.
                            Yes. Sorry again. I know that each question of mine is not something that can be answered quickly. But you have been patient and helped me out in understanding where you are coming from .

                            I think it is the reason why God gave us science and laws of nature. Scripture and science (God's natural laws) I feel go hand in hand without much need to haggle over much. Those things we do not really understand yet, will be made known to us sooner or later. When they are, I think we will see how science and the Scriptures are even more compatible.
                            Last edited by Jesse; 09-23-2014, 12:28 PM.
                            "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              BTW -- Jesse, welcome to the Natural Science Forum!

                              It's one wacky ride -- and kinda fun if you can take it.

                              K54
                              Thanks for the warm welcome, Klaus54. I must say, it has been pretty fun conversing with all of you.
                              "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                No problem. In one way or another I've been at this for over four decades and counting. Of course, that doesn't mean much because I could have my own personal agenda and be wrong about this or that. You have to do your own research and meditations and prayer. Assuming that you do this diligently and honestly (next to prayer seeking for guidance, honesty is the most important element in your quest), in the end you will find that I haven't lied nor exaggerated on any point.





                                I agree with what you say about the definition that I use for "distortion". It is a definition that I have fashioned and customized over time ("customized" to apply specifically to the Creation-Evolution debate). Even though it is my own, if you research many dictionaries and sources you will find that it is reasonable. I've merely generalized the concept of "distortion". As for your last two questions above ...

                                The first is easy to answer: Just pick up your Bible (hopefully a A1611KJV but NASB, NIV, NKJV will be suitable here) and read the creation history in Genesis. Here is a bit of what you run into (there are many more, these are just to give you the idea):


                                Evolution......................................Genesis
                                Sun before earth.............................Earth before sun
                                Dry land before sea..........................Sea before dry land
                                Atmosphere before sea.....................Sea before atmosphere
                                Sun before light on earth...................Light on earth before sun
                                Stars before earth............................Earth before stars
                                Sea creatures before land plants.........Land plants before sea creatures
                                Land animals before trees..................Trees before land animals
                                Death before man.............................Man before death
                                Thorns and thistles before man...........Man before thorns and thistles
                                Insects before flowering plants...........Flowering plants before insects
                                Sun before plants.............................Plants before sun


                                As I said, these are just a few of many more. So YOU have to decide: do you accept the Bible's acccount or do you reject it? The BIGGIE in this list is death before man versus man before death. Theologically, that is a MAJOR issue - insurmountable, actually. See the following link for more details and facts:
                                https://answersingenesis.org/why-doe...vents-matters/

                                Your second question is harder to answer, especially in a comprehensive manner. It involves understanding - within the framework of orthodox Christian theology - what exegesis and eisegesis are, what hermeneutics is, the introduction of extra-biblical data, the role of language and translation and other relevant topics.

                                Essentially the aim is to obtain from the Scripture precisely what God intended - nothing more and nothing less. An honest grammatical-historical approach where Scripture is almost-exclusively used to interpret Scripture has been proven to be the proper approach. This had been the gold-standard for centuries, until an "enlightened, modern/post-modern" world started taking over. Then vain philosophies, revisionism, "Scientism" and other perversions entered the scene - it's been swirling down into the toilet ever since. Out of time ... got'ta go.

                                Jorge
                                Well then the first Genesis story is WRONG from a cursory study of Creation itself, ain't it?!

                                K54

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X