Creationist no Longer... [Archive]

View Full Version : Creationist no Longer...

Constantine

November 28th 2004, 09:51 PM

This is my first post at Theology web so I thought it would be important to let everyone know where I stand and how I got there. I came here at the invite of Glenn Morton after I emailed him shortly after my "conversion" from YEC to Theistic Evolution. The following is an essay I wrote about how I got from there to here. It is not comprehensive but gives you a good idea of the way I figure things out. My main focus in such a debate is not necessarily which interpratation of Genesis is correct but rather simply if it is suppose to be literal or not. Here is my essay and intro to this way cool forum:

A Creationist no longer:

I’m no longer a creationist in any mainstream sense of the word, though I certainly am a Roman Catholic (a quite traditional and conservative one at that). I do not believe the earth and the universe were created in six literal 24 hour days 6,000 years ago. I now believe in Theistic Evolution. I believe that the universe was created roughly 14 billion years ago when God caused the big bang and designed it to unfold in just the exact way that it did to create this universe perfectly suited for our existence and amazement. I believe that once the earth was formed, under God’s ultimate direction, that He guided the evolution of life to humanity through Divine Providence. I believe that Genesis, and indeed the Bible as a whole, corresponds better to an old universe/big bang cosmology and Theistic Evolution than it does protestant fundamentalist views of young earth creation. Why have I come so far from the views I held about young earth creationism? Well it took a lot of reading, and prayer.

Suspicions aroused:

I am a Roman Catholic and in so being I believe that the Catholic Church headed by the Pope is the one true and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ with St. Peter as the first Pope. One thing that always bugged me about YEC (young earth creationism) is the utter lack of Catholics. There are no Catholic YEC leaders that I am aware of. I also found quite a bit of hostility against the Catholic Church in YEC literature. So I thought to myself, why should I trust Biblical interpretation of such importance to the same people who I so vehemently disagree with from which books of the Bible are Cannon to the issue of Salvation? If YEC is as important as its proponents claim, why is the Catholic Church neutral on the timing of creation and indeed on most scientific details (with a few implicit exceptions I’ll discuss later) of the origins debate in general?

Then I wondered where are all the Catholics? The vast majority of Catholic scientist and theologians (including, apparently, our current Pope) believe in Theistic Evolution. If it is good enough for Pope John Paul II then it must have merit. It gave me the inspiration to be more open minded on the subject and to more objectively search for the answers. I then went looking to see what the early Church Fathers really thought about Genesis. Who else could be better qualified to speak on it than the people around before or at the time the Bible was compiled and the Cannon affirmed. They would be much closer to the time when the Scriptures were written and they would be free of the charge of being influenced by modern secular thought.

Suspicions confirmed:

YEC’s claim that their interpretation of the Bible is the “original” one for Christianity. This simply isn’t so. It turns out that the majority of Church Fathers that we have writings from believed that the Creation account in Genesis was non-literal. They may not have believed the earth was millions of years old, but the important thing is that to them it would not have really mattered since the Creation account was non-literal to begin with. The Church Fathers with this view include, but are not limited to the ones I quote below:

Justin Martyr:

"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus:

"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria:

"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen:

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

Augustine:

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

There are more quotes like these from more Fathers of the Church but I think this list will suffice. If the men who were around when the Bible was compiled by the Church, or very shortly there after thought that a literal six day creation was simply not what the Bible teaches then who are we to argue? Yes there were some who disagreed but not many, and not nearly as influential as the ones listed above. If all these smart, honorable Catholic Scholars of the Scriptures said YEC is non-Biblical why should I believe a new modernist view? Please notice that up until now I have only used the Bible, Church tradition, and the opinions of the founding fathers of the Church.

Science speaks:

But what about all the convincing science arguments put forward by this group? They are only convincing when seen individually. When you gather up the number of widely accepted (by YEC’s) young-age arguments and total them against the number of arguments that point to an old universe from mainstream physics, geology, and most importantly to me cosmology you get a staggering picture for any young earth creationist. Also, after checking up on some YEC claims I had initially thought convincing I was disturbed to find a complete incompetence on the part of one of the biggest YEC organizations, Answers in Genesis (AiG).

AiG, just like so many other creationist groups, claims that the fossil record does not document evolution. This quote is one such example:

“The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. Of all the thousands upon thousands of intermediates that should exist, a mere handful of questionable examples such as the ‘mammal-like reptiles’ for the mammals, and Archaeopteryx for the birds — are held forth as ‘proof’.”
Read the full article here: http://answersingenesis.org/docs/3987.asp

This is completely false. The fossil record documents many transitions very well. It is not complete for every organism but there is plenty of evidence of intermediate fossils. An overview of some of the best and most famous can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates . There are many more examples including some dinosaurs, and many invertebrates like the ones documented at Glenn Morton‘s website.

YEC’s also claim that Evolution is not “operational science” because it has not been observed. That again is simply not true: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040607065821.htm

On their astronomy FAQ there is a question about star formation. Here is an excerpt from the article.

“When dark nebulae collide with emission nebulae, features like those noted in the HST image result. The dust pushes its way through the hot gas. Gas along the front edge of the collision compresses and glows hotter. This results in the whitish appearing areas at the edges of the dark 'fingers' of dust.
I presume that the temperatures of these areas are near 10,000 K so that they glow like the surfaces of stars of similar temperature, that is, white. Gas at such temperatures will quickly disperse and there is no chance of it forming stars. We should not be convinced that embedded stars exist within the 'finger tips' of these dust regions unless they are actually imaged.
I strongly suspect that they are not there, and this is simply another example of the strong publicity emphasis surrounding the Hubble Space Telescope. Without such exciting 'new discoveries' coming regularly, the HST could fall under the knife of legislative budget cuts.”

Read the full link here: http://answersingenesis.org/docs/438.asp

Well stars are forming today, in fact astronomers are watching the form right now: http://space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_trifid_040603.html

Not just stars are forming today. A new planet has been observed in the process of forming. Star and Planet formation takes millions of years. Even if you allow for Dr. Humphrey’s discredited (but widely propagated) white hole cosmology, YECs cannot explain this young planet: http://space.com/scienceastronomy/youngest_planet_040527.html

Being only 420 light years from earth it shouldn’t be any older than several thousand years by young earth creationist cosmologies, yet there it is at one million years old. It’s existence even confirmed one of two competing planet formation theories.

I was disturbed by the incompetence and the fact that so many people take what organizations like AiG say as Gospel. It will make them look foolish, and by extension all Christians foolish when they argue for young-earth creationism.

If the Big Bang is correct then YEC is dead. After reading more about cosmology (Mainly from “Show Me God” by Fred Heeren) I have come to the conclusion that the Big Bang is probably correct and even corresponds to Genesis (along with the fossil record). After listening to the advice of the Church Fathers, finding out the true origins of young earth creationism, and seeing the scientific evidence I personally found shatter the view of a young earth I have definitively decided that YEC is intellectually indefensible. But with its passing I have found my new world view: Theistic Evolution. It is the only position which fit’s all the facts from the Bible, Theology, and science. (Incase you are wondering what the Catholic position is on origins, please read this link: http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp )

Jawa Man

November 28th 2004, 10:14 PM

I just want to say, I was a big YECer because I always thought the earliest views were solely young earth. I haven't read your entire piece, but just the quotes you have from the early Church have made me a lot more open to being wrong. Especially that Origen one. Good searchin'!

NeilUnreal

November 28th 2004, 10:25 PM

Thanks, Constantine, and welcome!

-Neil

rogero

November 28th 2004, 11:28 PM

God bless you, Constantine, and a most hearty welcome!

It is refreshing to hear such integration of faith and reason as per Cardinal Newman (http://www.newmancenter.com/institute/newman.html) here on TWeb. I'm not RC, but I teach at an RC college and have the utmost respect for their views on God's immanence and omnipotence in nature, and in particular on the issue of origins.

I'm glad you are here, but be forewarned that you will be bombarded by YEC rhetoricians who will denigrate your faith, call you a "compromiser", and attempt an equivalence with your POV and that of atheists with the broad-brush monikers of "naturalism" or "evolutionism".

BTW, your quotes from the early church fathers are most appreciated. Let's see how the YECers will dredge up quotes from Protestant Fundamentalists of the past hundred and fifty years to counteract these. "heresies". :wink:

In God's Peace,

Roger

George Murphy

November 29th 2004, 08:12 AM

grmorton

November 29th 2004, 12:14 PM

YEC’s claim that their interpretation of the Bible is the “original” one for Christianity. This simply isn’t so. It turns out that the majority of Church Fathers that we have writings from believed that the Creation account in Genesis was non-literal. They may not have believed the earth was millions of years old, but the important thing is that to them it would not have really mattered since the Creation account was non-literal to begin with. The Church Fathers with this view include, but are not limited to the ones I quote below:

Justin Martyr:

"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus:

"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria:

"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen:

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

Augustine:

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

There are more quotes like these from more Fathers of the Church but I think this list will suffice. If the men who were around when the Bible was compiled by the Church, or very shortly there after thought that a literal six day creation was simply not what the Bible teaches then who are we to argue? Yes there were some who disagreed but not many, and not nearly as influential as the ones listed above. If all these smart, honorable Catholic Scholars of the Scriptures said YEC is non-Biblical why should I believe a new modernist view? Please notice that up until now I have only used the Bible, Church tradition, and the opinions of the founding fathers of the Church.

Constantine, it is great to see you here. (I have not been paying as much attention over the past few weeks and didn't see this until today. If you had a bunch more of these quotations, I would love to put them on my web page where they could help others. You, of course would be the author and like the few others who have pages on my web site would get good billing.

Constantine

November 29th 2004, 12:34 PM

Wow, thanks for all the positive feedback. Its good to be here on Tweb.

Glenn, I would be more than happy to get some more quotes together to put on your website. Finals are coming up next week for me but after that I should have plenty of time to find more.

Also, ICR put out an "Impact Article" on the views of the early Church Fathers. I wrote an essay as a rebuttal to that specific article. Would you be interested in reading it?

dizzle

November 29th 2004, 12:44 PM

Jugulum

November 29th 2004, 12:59 PM

If you had a bunch more of these quotations, I would love to put them on my web page where they could help others. That would indeed be useful. If you want to go the extra mile and include links to to online versions of the cited texts, it would be even more useful. Less research required from the rest of us. :teeth:

I doubt it would be an unreasonable amount of work--I found this source for the quote from Justin Martyr with only a quick googling, and it looks like the site has quite a lot of writings of the early church:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/just/justintrypho.html#Section81

markporter

November 29th 2004, 02:31 PM

Finals are coming up next week

nooo.....not the f word :-s

Amazing Rando

November 29th 2004, 02:58 PM

Rusty T

November 29th 2004, 03:05 PM

I would only add that one can engage in the ever tiresome "Battle of the ECF's" when speaking of origins. There is as much variance in their opinions as there are among Twebbers. I find it useful to trust God as Creator - no matter how it happened. Beyond that I'm not qualified to say. I agree with Rando, however. I personally do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, but I would definitely call myself a creationist for I believe in a Creator.

rusty

Warcraft3

November 29th 2004, 03:12 PM

This is my first post at Theology web so I thought it would be important to let everyone know where I stand and how I got there. I came here at the invite of Glenn Morton

Welcome to TWEB Constantine.

Glenn Morton had a profound impact in my life as well.

I look forward to reading your posts.

Russ

Jugulum

November 29th 2004, 03:13 PM

I'm not sure why you'd want to abandon the title of "creationist"- it seems to me that if you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, you're still a creationist, no matter how you think he did it.
The term "creationist" generally refers to the special creation of life, not creation of the universe. Old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists agree on how God made life. Theistic evolutionists agree with both that God did make the universe, but disagree on His method of making life.

He's using the labels correctly.

Amazing Rando

November 29th 2004, 10:06 PM

The term "creationist" generally refers to the special creation of life, not creation of the universe. Old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists agree on how God made life. Theistic evolutionists agree with both that God did make the universe, but disagree on His method of making life.

He's using the labels correctly.

Still- one cannot be a TE and a "creationist"? I know of at least one prominant twebber- Kenny- who is a TE and a Calvinist- he believes God used evolution as his mechanism of creation and specifically guided the evolutionary process.

Constantine

November 30th 2004, 01:33 AM

Constantine, I would like to see that essay. I am YEC and not inclined to change (not just due to firm convicctions but due to a lack of time recently to examine anything so thoroughly to change my mind) but I am very interested now in the ECF in general and would love to see that piece.

It may need some editing but I'll post it as soon as its ready.

That would indeed be useful. If you want to go the extra mile and include links to to online versions of the cited texts, it would be even more useful. Less research required from the rest of us.

I certainly will try to do that from now on.

I just want to say, I was a big YECer because I always thought the earliest views were solely young earth. I haven't read your entire piece, but just the quotes you have from the early Church have made me a lot more open to being wrong. Especially that Origen one. Good searchin'!

This is exactly why I posted it. Finding out what the ECF's said about Genesis helped me to change.

I would only add that one can engage in the ever tiresome "Battle of the ECF's" when speaking of origins. There is as much variance in their opinions as there are among Twebbers. I find it useful to trust God as Creator - no matter how it happened. Beyond that I'm not qualified to say. I agree with Rando, however. I personally do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, but I would definitely call myself a creationist for I believe in a Creator.

My intent is not to prove that all Early Church Fathers believed in non-literal interpretations of Genesis. All I have to do is show that a good number of them did. You see, the YEC's always try to claim that a young-earth view was the only Christian view for 2,000 years. By finding that what seems to be a majority actually had different views proves that there are other ways of looking at Genesis that are not "compromises" or influenced by non-Christian outside sources. It also goes to show how rediculous yet another young-earth creationist claim is.

I said I am a creationist no longer because generally speaking a 'creationist' is viewed as being either a young earth or old earth creationist that denies biological evolution. It is true that in the strictest sense I am a creationist, but calling myself that instead of a Theistic Evolutionist would only cause confusion.

Jugulum

November 30th 2004, 01:42 AM

Still- one cannot be a TE and a "creationist"? I know of at least one prominant twebber- Kenny- who is a TE and a Calvinist- he believes God used evolution as his mechanism of creation and specifically guided the evolutionary process.
Sure, depending on how you define "creationist." Like I said, TEs agree with YECs and OECs that "God created the heavens and the earth," and that God created life. In the sense that God is ultimately responsible for life, the universe, and everything, yes, you can call a TE a "creationist."

The difference is that YECs and OECs believe life originates from special creation events, and TEs don't--except perhaps the theorized original self-replicating molecule. That's why we don't call them creationists.

grmorton

November 30th 2004, 11:18 AM

dizzle

November 30th 2004, 11:29 AM

Jaltus

November 30th 2004, 11:50 AM

Yeah I would like to see that essay, Constantine, but unlike the writer above, I am willing to change my mind. It is sad that YEC must survive by never changing one's mind.

It is sad that theistic evolutionists must survive by ritually sacrificing goats.

kendemyer

November 30th 2004, 01:20 PM

TO: constantine

You wrote:

The vast majority of Catholic scientist and theologians (including, apparently, our current Pope) believe in Theistic Evolution. If it is good enough for Pope John Paul II then it must have merit. It gave me the inspiration to be more open minded on the subject and to more objectively search for the answers.

First of all, as an ex Catholic I would ask you if Pope Paul II spoke ex-cathedra when he gave his views on evolution.

Second, how does this sound......

"If YEC is good enough for Billy Graham then it must have merit. It gave me the inspiration to be more open minded on the subject and to more objectively search for the answers."

I would say that being a religious figure and being a scientist are two different catagories although theologians are not stupid and unable to look at scientific matters.

Third, what about the pre Darwin Popes before John Paul II who did not believe in the macroevolution position because it was not widely thought that man came from animals? You could argue that if non-macroevolution thinking was good enough for them then it must have merit!

Fourth, if John Paul II thinking that macroevolution position has some merit and therefore "it must have merit" made you more objective then I would question your objectivity.

Fifth, reliance on what the majority of present Catholic theologians believe is a ad populum and appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Trout

November 30th 2004, 01:32 PM

Yeah I would like to see that essay, Constantine, but unlike the writer above, I am willing to change my mind. It is sad that YEC must survive by never changing one's mind.

Nice glenn! :thumb:

Very informative and persuasive.

Soundsurfr

November 30th 2004, 01:50 PM

I would say that being a religious figure and being a scientist are two different catagories although theologians are not stupid and unable to look at scientific matters.
This is the crux of the matter, in my opinion. There is only one way to approach science, and that is to understand science and apply it correctly. You can hold a theological opinion about scientific matters, but that constitutes theology, not science.

If there were a religion whose spiritual doctrine conflicted with, say calculus theory, its believers may put a lot of time and effort into debunking theoretical calculus, but if they do not do it in the context of proper mathematical discipline, such "debunking" would amount to little more than theological postulating. Certainly the body of mathematics will not be moved by it. Certainly the schools should not be called upon to teach it as mathematics.

It is in this context that we find the modern "Young Earth Creationist". They do not bring to the table a new scientifically supportable "theory of creation" or origin of species. Instead, they set out to debunk existing scientific theory and in so doing, they invariably blur or compromise the tenets of scientific inquiry either deliberately or through lack of understanding of those tenets.

In light of this, their viewpoint remains theology, not science.

As far as which one represents actual TRUTH, well, that is another discussion.

grmorton

November 30th 2004, 02:29 PM

Of course that is a mischaracterization of what I said.

It is sad that opposition to YEC must survive by misrepresenting what others say.

In case I stuttered I said that I have very firm convictions true enough (these convictions came from a long time of contemplation and study in the matter) but when a person is going to make radical changes in outlook, the responsible thing to do is devote a lot of time and study and contemplation to do so (it took me YEARS of intensive dedicated study to abandon futurism from being a zealous dispensationalist) - anything else is being tossed to and fro by the wind of every doctrine - I do not have that luxury of that kind of study time right now. Why do you only take out what you can use to paint me in a bad light instead of takikgn the totality of what I actually said?

So rather than seeking an opportunity to get a dig in Glenn, you should try to hear what a person is actually saying.

Glenn quite a few people here have said your works have impacted them - that is great. If you care to receive this, one reason why it would be difficult for you personally to reach me is because of your attitude to find any way to get a dig in at YEC. You may not care, but I can assure you that this is a stumbling block of a lot of YEC "hearing" you. If you want to be more effective you may wish to cut that out.

Don't feel so singled out, Dee Dee. The reality is that when I was a YEC the only way I could maintain my YEC views was precisely the way you are--never changing my mind. Any criticism I aim at YEC is also or was also applicable to me when I was a YEC. Jesus said something about one's own words condemning oneself. In this case, my own words condemn me as well as you.

Now, I will commend you on your willingness to acknowledge that you are unwilling to change your mind. That is a refreshing piece of honesty. Most YECs say that they will change but never do. At least you were honest and said you wouldn't.

THe question I have to YECs like you: Is this really what Christianity is all about? Never changing one's mind?

dizzle

November 30th 2004, 09:29 PM

kendemyer

November 30th 2004, 10:37 PM

TO: constantine

A few points:

1. I do believe that faith in a Creator can help science because belief in monotheism implies a real (not illusionary) material world that is orderly and can be studied. Science blossumed for a while in Muslim countries then withered (various theries why) and then blossumed in the Christian West which caused the leap in science: www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ Science never blossomed in the skeptical period of Greek philosophy. In short, science does not happen in a vacuum.

2. Secondly, you asserted the following:

It is in this context that we find the modern "Young Earth Creationist". They do not bring to the table a new scientifically supportable "theory of creation" or origin of species. Instead, they set out to debunk existing scientific theory and in so doing, they invariably blur or compromise the tenets of scientific inquiry either deliberately or through lack of understanding of those tenets.

It is a time honored tradition in debate that assertions require evidence. You never did that.

3. I do think you avoided tackling most of the material of my last post.

rogero

November 30th 2004, 10:37 PM

Glenn this is reprehensible. I corrected you once and you still continue to blatantly misrepresent me. The question I have for nonYEC like you? Is THAT really what Christianity is about? Misrepresenting other people? :eww:

You have been corrected twice now Glenn. This is exactly what has earned you "enemies" at times in the past. Of course maybe you don't care what us

stoopid YEC think,

but I would care if I were you when a large segment of one group of people think you have a habit of cheap shots like that one. The fact that you continued it after being corrected is without excuse.

This thread was very easygoing and congenial before you pulled that stunt.

PS Jug - your post also correcting Glenn (thanks) seems to have been lost in the database crash we had.

DeeDee,

Ya know, when I first read your post, I thought you said "reasonable."

You and your YEC friends can just keep on denying the facts that God allows us to study in nature. You are a digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourselves and other scientifically-naive laypersons.

I hope you and your YEC friends enjoy your narrow knowledge ghetto. How's the weather in there???

You are really bringing shame to the name of Christ. You better pray really hard that none of your sycophant followers decide to study Creation in depth (or at least stick to the YEC propaganda sites.)

I'm sure you will respond in kind, as that is the nature of the rhetorician you are that is always right. Maybe you'll get a supporting post (and perhaps a bit of Koine Greek subterfuge) from your little toad "particle physicist" who is a disgrace to everything he ever learned once upon a time.

I really can't believe the nastiness you YECs have towards the former YEC Glenn Morton, the only current or former YEC who apparently has any depth of knowledege of science. He can speak from scientific and cultural experience -- what is your basis of debate? Shame on you...

R

Jezz

November 30th 2004, 10:51 PM

Don't feel so singled out, Dee Dee. The reality is that when I was a YEC the only way I could maintain my YEC views was precisely the way you are--never changing my mind. Any criticism I aim at YEC is also or was also applicable to me when I was a YEC. Jesus said something about one's own words condemning oneself. In this case, my own words condemn me as well as you.
Glenn, this is your problem. You look at a YEC and you don't see an individual person with their own individual thoughts and feelings. You see your old self. Clearly, you hate him, you feel betrayed by him, and you take out your frustrations on YECers.

But here's a newsflash for you, Glenn: YECers are people too. They are not the Borg.

Now, I will commend you on your willingness to acknowledge that you are unwilling to change your mind. That is a refreshing piece of honesty. Most YECs say that they will change but never do. At least you were honest and said you wouldn't.
Yes, at least she was honest. A virtue that you clearly lack sometimes (eg, now).

Read Dee Dee's post again. Remember that Dee Dee wrote the post - not your old YEC self.

Dee Dee did not say that she was unwilling to change her mind. She said she was not inclined to change her mind (as in, she's not leaning that way). And the reason she's not inclined is not just the fact that it's a strong conviction for her, but also because she doesn't have time to devote to giving it the research it deserves! The implication is clearly that if she had more time, maybe she would change her mind!

THe question I have to YECs like you: Is this really what Christianity is all about? Never changing one's mind?
No. It is also not about repeatedly and deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting another person's opinion. Especially after being corrected on it once.

Wait a minute: repeated, deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation of facts? Persistence with such dishonesty even after being corrected? Aren't these the traits that you despise in "YECers" (disclaimer: I do not believe that all YECers have these traits)? :teeth: It seems that despite your best efforts, you've not managed to shake that mentality that you so despise, Glenn... you're just applying it to different subject matter...

I think you owe Dee Dee a retraction and an apology.

Jezz

November 30th 2004, 11:16 PM

Ya know, when I first read your post, I thought you said "reasonable."

You and your YEC friends can just keep on denying the facts that God allows us to study in nature. You are a digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourselves and other scientifically-naive laypersons.

I hope you and your YEC friends enjoy your narrow knowledge ghetto. How's the weather in there???

You are really bringing shame to the name of Christ. You better pray really hard that none of your sycophant followers decide to study Creation in depth (or at least stick to the YEC propaganda sites.)

I'm sure you will respond in kind, as that is the nature of the rhetorician you are that is always right. Maybe you'll get a supporting post (and perhaps a bit of Koine Greek subterfuge) from your little toad "particle physicist" who is a disgrace to everything he ever learned once upon a time.

I really can't believe the nastiness you YECs have towards the former YEC Glenn Morton, the only current or former YEC who apparently has any depth of knowledege of science. He can speak from scientific and cultural experience -- what is your basis of debate? Shame on you...
The reason for Dee Dee's anger towards Glenn really has nothing to do with YEC. It has to do with whether or not Glenn misrepresented what Dee Dee said.

Dee Dee said that she was not inclined to change her mind on YEC (at this point in time).
Glenn mispresented her by claiming that she said she was unwilling to change. He repeated this mispresentation even after being corrected on it.

Do you think it is acceptable for people to misrepresent other people's opinions in this way, rogero?

While I've got your attention, I can't help but note that I find your usage of the appellation "sycophant" quite humerous - because it so perfectly describes your attitude towards Glenn. It seems that the sum total of your contribution to any debate involving Glenn is "Yeah! Glenn rules!". You did the same thing in my last discussion with Glenn - even though it turned out I was right and Glenn was wrong on the issue under discussion.

Jawa Man

November 30th 2004, 11:27 PM

YEC, OEC, TE... who cares?

I don't think this branding is right... who are we to brand others with close-mindedness? Who among Christianity isn't in some ways closed minded, or isn't in some ways arrogant and blind? None of us are perfect.

Constantine

December 1st 2004, 01:37 AM

Glenn, Dee Dee....I'm new here and don't really want to take sides. When I read Dee Dee's post I knew it could be taken badly (as Glenn took it) but I figured that it was a vieled curiosity. You too bickering over this is really pointless, it adds nothing to the debate and only causes disruption and anger. It reminds me of the Apostle Paul's warning that Christians not engage in senseless arguements over silly things. I call a misunderstanding over a single statement a silly thing to argue over (and a bit immature). Please can't we just get along and stick to the issues? Like I said I am not taking sides, so please don't interpret this post as a condemnation/endorsement in any direction. I shall step down from my soap box now.

First of all, as an ex Catholic I would ask you if Pope Paul II spoke ex-cathedra when he gave his views on evolution.

No, he was not speaking with infalibility. The Pope only invokes infalibility when speaking on Faith, Morals, or Salvation. The official Catholic position on Genesis is this:

1. Catholics must believe that the universe has a begining and it was started by God.

2. That no matter how the planets, stars, and life got to how they are now it was only by God's will and direction.

3. No matter how man's body came to be, his immortal soul was specially created by God.

4. Whether or not Eden was a historical place, we must believe that Adam and Eve were real people and had a real Fall.

All the other details don't matter for Salvation or Theology. So Catholics are free to be creationists or Theistic Evolutionists; though historically Catholic leaders lean more towards TE.

"If YEC is good enough for Billy Graham then it must have merit. It gave me the inspiration to be more open minded on the subject and to more objectively search for the answers."

I would say that being a religious figure and being a scientist are two different catagories although theologians are not stupid and unable to look at scientific matters.

Although Billy Graham is a nice guy I would hardly compare him to the Pope. Besides, in Protestant theology Billy Graham has no more authority to speak on what the Scripture means as Dee Dee or Glenn Morton or Regero or you.

Third, what about the pre Darwin Popes before John Paul II who did not believe in the macroevolution position because it was not widely thought that man came from animals? You could argue that if non-macroevolution thinking was good enough for them then it must have merit!

Belief or disbelief in macroevolution is not really the issue. The issue is whether or not it is consistent with Biblical interprataion. What is necessary for Catholic belief works with evolution or without it. The Catholic Church is not in the business of theologically evaluating theories on how biology works. If it doesn't affect Salvation, then what is the big deal? That's why you don't see many Catholics deeply involved in the origins debate, for us it has been settled with the above guidelines for a very long time. Personally I see YEC as a threat to Christianity, so I feel it is important to confront it as I would any thing that was harming Christianity.

YEC is a threat to Christianity because it is a complete misunderstanding of the authors intent and through its outrageous claims it makes Christians look foolish to a great many people that might otherwise come to know Christ. And that is my bottom line.

Fourth, if John Paul II thinking that macroevolution position has some merit and therefore "it must have merit" made you more objective then I would question your objectivity.

Fifth, reliance on what the majority of present Catholic theologians believe is a ad populum and appeal to authority logical fallacy.

No one is totally objective or there wouldn't be any debates. I did not rely on their opinion to form my own. I said I was inspired to look at the otherside because so many people I respected were on the other side, including alot of Early Church Fathers.

kendemyer: On your otherpost I would agree with number 1. It is a scientists faith in an orderly universe that makes him sure that he can describe things and predict things with natural laws. How an atheist can have such faith I do not know. On your other points, that wasn't me that said it so I will let the author of those comments defend himself.

dizzle

December 1st 2004, 02:19 AM

Heya Constantine, in communications between the brethren we should try to step back and not take the worst possible view that would paint the person in a bad light but the best. However, that being said, after I corrected Glenn it was thoroughly inappropriate for him to misrepresent me a second time and then chastise me on whether my misrepresented attitude was Christian or not. This is the classic fallacy of the strawman.

Abigail

December 1st 2004, 05:58 AM

DeeDee,

Ya know, when I first read your post, I thought you said "reasonable."

You and your YEC friends can just keep on denying the facts that God allows us to study in nature. You are a digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourselves and other scientifically-naive laypersons.

I hope you and your YEC friends enjoy your narrow knowledge ghetto. How's the weather in there???

You are really bringing shame to the name of Christ. You better pray really hard that none of your sycophant followers decide to study Creation in depth (or at least stick to the YEC propaganda sites.)

I'm sure you will respond in kind, as that is the nature of the rhetorician you are that is always right. Maybe you'll get a supporting post (and perhaps a bit of Koine Greek subterfuge) from your little toad "particle physicist" who is a disgrace to everything he ever learned once upon a time.

I really can't believe the nastiness you YECs have towards the former YEC Glenn Morton, the only current or former YEC who apparently has any depth of knowledege of science. He can speak from scientific and cultural experience -- what is your basis of debate? Shame on you...

R
I find it laughable that you can chastise DDW for nastiness and that in the next sentence after an exceedingly nasty comment you made about....mmmmh Jaltus :ahem: .

Jugulum

December 1st 2004, 10:40 AM

This is a repost of something I wrote yesterday afternoon. Actually, it was post 25 in this thread, but it disappeared during the site maintenance.

Now, I will commend you on your willingness to acknowledge that you are unwilling to change your mind. That is a refreshing piece of honesty. Most YECs say that they will change but never do. At least you were honest and said you wouldn't.

THe question I have to YECs like you: Is this really what Christianity is all about? Never changing one's mind?
Wow, but you're being obtuse. She corrects you once, and then you commit the exact same misrepresentation? Let's recap what she said, shall we?

1.) "I have very firm convictions true enough (these convictions came from a long time of contemplation and study in the matter)"
2.) "when a person is going to make radical changes in outlook, the responsible thing to do is devote a lot of time and study and contemplation to do so"
3.) "I do not have that luxury of that kind of study time right now."

How you can possibly get "I'll never change my mind" from that is beyond me. In fact, it's so unbelievable I'm starting to think it really is intentional--that you really are just looking for an opportunity to get in a dig.

Perhaps you think that in spite of what DDW says, she really won't ever change her mind. Perhaps you think you have good reason for that opinion. That doesn't justify this...oafishness.

Honestly, this sort of intentional misrepresentation displays a lack of integrity and fairness I would have thought beneath you. You should apologize, or you will lose face. And as DDW said, you will lose influence with YECs seeing this exchange.

grmorton

December 1st 2004, 11:36 AM

This is a repost of something I wrote yesterday afternoon. Actually, it was post 25 in this thread, but it disappeared during the site maintenance.

Wow, but you're being obtuse. She corrects you once, and then you commit the exact same misrepresentation? Let's recap what she said, shall we?

[color=Red]1.) "I have very firm convictions true enough (these convictions came from a long time of contemplation and study in the matter)"
2.) "when a person is going to make radical changes in outlook, the responsible thing to do is devote a lot of time and study and contemplation to do so"
3.) "I do not have that luxury of that kind of study time right now."[color=Black]

How you can possibly get "I'll never change my mind" from that is beyond me. In fact, it's so unbelievable I'm starting to think it really is intentional--that you really are just looking for an opportunity to get in a dig.

Perhaps you think that in spite of what DDW says, she really won't ever change her mind. Perhaps you think you have good reason for that opinion. That doesn't justify this...oafishness.

I have never seen Dee Dee do anything but get mad when I suggest that she has a responsibility to truth and that it shouldn't take a scientific genious to know that if burrows, desciccation cracks, and footprints are found throughout the entire geologic column, that the global flood concept has major difficulties. But lets go back and look at the original statement for which I am accused of being oafish about:

I am YEC and not inclined to change (not just due to firm convicctions but due to a lack of time recently to examine anything so thoroughly to change my mind) but I am very interested now in the ECF in general and would love to see that piece.

Omit the parenthesis and the statement reads: "I am YEC and not inclined to change but I am very interested now in the ECF in general and would love to see that piece."

She said she was not inclined to change, not me. I don't know how more clearly one can put it. If I said show me the evidence but I won't pay attention to it, I should be called on it, but Dee Dee just gets mad for someone stateing the obvious. So If I am being oafish about quoting her sentence that is fine. I didn't even quote her out of context. I included everything she said.

Now, if someone can tell me why footprints, burrows and desciccation cracks in a supposedly year long deposition of 30+ thousand feet of sediment requires a geology degree and lots of study to understand that things shouldn't be walking around when sediment is being dumped on top of them at a rate of 2-4 feet per hour, I would love to hear it. Think about how deep the water must be to contain the sediment in suspension to dump that much sediment in an hour!

And why does it take a geology degree to know that the waters of the flood can be no deeper than the body length of the footprint maker? Some of them are spiders and centipedes. And why does it take lots of study to know that such a shallow flood can't be Noah's flood? Give me a break.

If someone would love to tell me why a wet event like the flood, should create numerous levels of desciccation throughout the entire 30+ thousand feet of sediment I would be interested. Why does that take a geology degree and years of study to understand the problem that wet floods don't create dry deserts?

If someonw would like to tell me why the existence of burrows throughout the geologic column requires years of study to know that the geologic column couldn't be the result of a global flood, I would love to hear that explanation.

It is amazing to me that you all don't actually hear what you are saying! It makes Christianity look stupid.

dizzle

December 1st 2004, 11:42 AM

And I corrected you. If you somehow misinterpreted my first statement - which was pretty clear unless you were looking for something to take a shot at, you had zero excuse to do so a second time. It is lack of charity such as that that makes Christianity look a whole lot more stupid. My parenthetical comment was VITAL to understand my point. It is not your perogative to chop it out to take cheap shots. I put that in there to avoid this kind of pettiness.

Jugulum

December 1st 2004, 01:21 PM

I have never seen Dee Dee do anything but get mad when I suggest that she has a responsibility to truth and that it shouldn't take a scientific genious to know that if burrows, desciccation cracks, and footprints are found throughout the entire geologic column, that the global flood concept has major difficulties. OK, so it's basically what I said: You think you have justification for your opinion that Dee Dee will never change her mind. Specifically, you've shown her arguments you think she should be able to evaluate quickly and easily. Fine. Say that, then. Do not misrepresent what she said.

But lets go back and look at the original statement for which I am accused of being oafish about:
I am YEC and not inclined to change (not just due to firm convicctions but due to a lack of time recently to examine anything so thoroughly to change my mind) but I am very interested now in the ECF in general and would love to see that piece. Omit the parenthesis and the statement reads: "I am YEC and not inclined to change but I am very interested now in the ECF in general and would love to see that piece."

She said she was not inclined to change, not me. I don't know how more clearly one can put it. If I said show me the evidence but I won't pay attention to it, I should be called on it, but Dee Dee just gets mad for someone stateing the obvious. So If I am being oafish about quoting her sentence that is fine. I didn't even quote her out of context. I included everything she said. The parenthesis are the explicit explanation of why and in what way she's not inclined to change. First, because of firm convictions--which she later explained are based on long study. Second, because she doesn't have the time to examine things thoroughly right now.

Right there in the middle of her original statement, she said she could change in the future after further study. It's what she said, or at least directly implied. And you're deliberately twisting it.

Omitting the parenthesis is just about as bad as omitting the "not" in "The Pope is not the antichrist."

Now, if someone can tell me why footprints, burrows and desciccation cracks in a supposedly year long deposition of 30+ thousand feet of sediment requires a geology degree and lots of study to understand that things shouldn't be walking around when sediment is being dumped on top of them at a rate of 2-4 feet per hour, I would love to hear it. Think about how deep the water must be to contain the sediment in suspension to dump that much sediment in an hour!

And why does it take a geology degree to know that the waters of the flood can be no deeper than the body length of the footprint maker? Some of them are spiders and centipedes. And why does it take lots of study to know that such a shallow flood can't be Noah's flood? Give me a break.

If someone would love to tell me why a wet event like the flood, should create numerous levels of desciccation throughout the entire 30+ thousand feet of sediment I would be interested. Why does that take a geology degree and years of study to understand the problem that wet floods don't create dry deserts?

If someonw would like to tell me why the existence of burrows throughout the geologic column requires years of study to know that the geologic column couldn't be the result of a global flood, I would love to hear that explanation. I'm relatively new here, and I haven't read all your earlier discussions. Maybe she doesn't want to accept your interpretation of the findings as divinely inspired. In other words, maybe she wants to ensure that the footprints really are footprints, that the cracks really are dessication cracks, that the vertical lines really are burrows, and that these features really do appear all the way through the layers of sediment. Maybe she doesn't have a specific question in mind, but simply wants to see how a YEC geologist responds.

Maybe you're right, and it should be a matter of 5 minutes' study to ensure these things. (I did find that picture of the bird footprints with peck marks rather convincing.) Maybe she doesn't actually believe any of this, and she just likes to annoy you. Or maybe she's just a stupid, unreasoning, dyed-in-the-wool creationist after the pattern of the Flat Earth Society, who'll always stay in her cave and persecute you for trying to bring her into the light.

It really doesn't matter, because you didn't choose to argue about what she is, you chose to lie about what she says she is.

Augustine2004

December 1st 2004, 07:50 PM

It really doesn't matter, because you didn't choose to argue about what she is, you chose to lie about what she says she is.Oh, come on. Stating things in black-white fashion is lying only by a broad expansion of the meaning of 'lying.' Perhaps GRM's posts should have been more nuanced, but he does have some reason to think DDW won't ever find the time to really consider the matter IMO.

Jugulum

December 1st 2004, 08:25 PM

Oh, come on. Stating things in black-white fashion is lying only by a broad expansion of the meaning of 'lying.' Perhaps GRM's posts should have been more nuanced, but he does have some reason to think DDW won't ever find the time to really consider the matter IMO. It's not a matter of stating things in black-white fashion. She absolutely did not say "I will never change my mind." She said "I will not change my mind unless..." That's not simple nuance, that's a substantial change in meaning.

To say that she will never change her mind is debatable. To say that she stated she'll never change her mind is a blatant mischaracterization, and one that he repeated. Twice. Maybe it does fall short of lying...but not by very much.

dizzle

December 1st 2004, 08:33 PM

And it is of course patently false that I would not ever purposefully find the time - I have a ton on my plate. I know everyone thinks their pet doctrien is the most important thing in life but newsflash! it isn't for everyone. I have changed my mind on a TON of things - most notably a deepseated hatred for Christianity and Christians. I used to walk around with a shirt on with a sheep with a NO symbol through it - that meant no sheep - no Christians. I was vehement. I used to be a very radical futurist dispensationalist - better at debating it than most folks here on the site. I don't need to say where that led to. I used to be a total teetolaler (crap how do you spell that?) - no longer. I used to be a nondescript nonCalvinist. I am now a Molinist. Ask Jaltus how long I put off deciding on that - and what was mmy reason to him? I frankly don't ahve the time right now Jaltus. And so on. Just because I don't bow in a sniveling heap (yes I am beign sarcastic) at the power of Glenn doesn't mean that I may never change my mind. In fact, one genial and articulate spokesman here at the site has me very much sympathetic towards the framework view (a YEC version) but still two years ago I would have said the framework view was phooey.

What is ironic when we do this to people is we confirm in them an undesirable characteristic which we profess we don't want them to have, paint them in that light very unfairly, and then mock then after the paint job.

What Glenn did to me was blatantly unfair. I never said what he claims I did - and when I corrected him he even more brashly misrepresented me and then proceeded to chastise his caricuture of me.

dizzle

December 1st 2004, 08:56 PM

Now why am I even bothering to address Glenn? Becuase generally I think he is or can be a great poster. He is obviously very knowledgeable and obviously has helped a lot of people. I don't write off this kind of stuff as comng from a troll or a typically bad poster because Glenn is none of those things. However, for the esteem he is held in, and due to the fact that this kidn of thing is really making some YEC have bad feelings, I think he ought to be held accountable for something so blatant. He is worth it you see? It is not to ridicule or beat him up - far from it. I do think that such things should be beneath him - from others it is par for course.

Augustine2004

December 1st 2004, 09:53 PM

My apologies. I went back to reread Glenn's posts. He does quote the relevant parts of DDW's posts in full, but he does seem to have misread or overlooked this part:

but I am very interested now in the ECF in general and would love to see that piece.That I would concede does show a willingness to consider what the ECF had to say about creationism.

dizzle

December 1st 2004, 10:03 PM

I am very interested indeed. I am interested in what the ECF had to say on all the doctrines that I am interested in as I find it a fascinating study. I didn't post that "just to be nice" - I posted it because I wanted to briefly read it now, and tuck it away for later reference. Why later? I just don't have the time to weigh things too thoroughly.

let me get something out here, and I don't really appreciate being mocked or looked down for this

I take a long time to go over things - once I have grasped a topic I am pretty sharp, but I take a bit longer sometimes to learn some things or keep them in memory (I have had some noticeable memory loss for whatever reason this past year or so - I think due to lack of sleep and over-work, yet I am mocked for not having time to dedicate to yet another project) - also when it comes to writing detailed and substantive defenses, I am a very slow writer - I am not so good at times in getting concepts that are clear in my head to transfer clearly to the written medium - or more precisely I can do it, but it is a long and painstaking process for me. I just wrote a 1700 word paper on a topic I have absolutely mastered. It took me three full time days to write it. I had to take a week OFF from work to be able to get sufficiently focused to do it - some of us are not so quick fire on changing our minds or in writing good pieces

people should not assume that if they are a quick writer or have a lot of time that everyone does

I am not a quick writer, I am not quick to change my mind, but once I do you can be assured that I am very convinced, and I am at the busiest time in my life

I would appreicate the courtesy of all of that

Jugulum

December 1st 2004, 11:45 PM

It's not a matter of stating things in black-white fashion. She absolutely did not say "I will never change my mind." She said "I will not change my mind unless..." That's not simple nuance, that's a substantial change in meaning.

To say that she will never change her mind is debatable. To say that she stated she'll never change her mind is a blatant mischaracterization, and one that he repeated. Twice. Maybe it does fall short of lying...but not by very much. Actually, Glenn, on second thought, I would like to shoot the high horse I was sitting on and apologize for using the inappropriately strong word "lie". I do think you're being irrational about this, but I doubt it's intentional and conscious enough to call it a lie. Sorry.

grmorton

December 2nd 2004, 12:23 AM

Oh, come on. Stating things in black-white fashion is lying only by a broad expansion of the meaning of 'lying.' Perhaps GRM's posts should have been more nuanced, but he does have some reason to think DDW won't ever find the time to really consider the matter IMO.

My experience so far has been that she always says she doesn't have the time or expertise to judge the issue. ONe can look back at our exchanges in the past. It seems to make her mad when she is called on it.

So, To Dee Dee, when do you think you will have time to study the implications of worm burrows to the flood?
And you didn't answer, that I could see, why it should take so long to draw a logical conclusion? Is that a time consuming thing?

dizzle

December 2nd 2004, 12:31 AM

I have no idea. I have a lot of other projects that are a whole lot more meaningful to me. When are you going to admit that you misrepresented me after being called on it?

And in the past I have not had the time or the expertise. And when you were told that you simply mocked. Someone else here already responded as to why it would be a time consuming thing. Further I have arleady told you Glenn my focus is Biblical. And though you very inappropriately told me that you could care less about this concern and why dont' I just become an atheist - ie your need to be sooo right in your science has driven you to the place that you don't care if you pushed so hard on the science that you caused someone to stumble if they did not yet have the Biblical facts (and that is a grave issue indeed - check your pride Glenn) - if you were to convince me on science and not the Bible - then I would have to conclude the Bible is wrong. I care more about what the Bible says and at this point I do not believe the Bible supports your view. I have told you this before - and you were quite cavalier. So my research is not so much on your data on science Glenn, no matter how much that doesn't earn your seal of approval, it is on the text. And I need time to research into the text - ie those ECF quotes will be helpful. This could be a decade away - it is not in the top of my priorities - other things are. But the issue is not science to me Glenn, it is the text first. And that is where I will focus. And yes if I am convinced that the text offers no alternative I will stick to the text. If the text offers other alternatives then that opens the door to others. But God gaveme the text - you are not an inspired prophet of the 67th book. Others disagree with you. Why should I not believe dtyler? He is just as convincing, and frankly, he is more agreeeable in personal manner to those who disagree than you are.

You should really concede your misrepresentation. One thing Glenn with the way you get all obnoxious about other person's time committments and desires to examine things, you may get your rah-rahs all happy, but it is not a charitable way to behave, and all you are doing is making yourself personally a stumbling block to YEC to hear you.

grmorton

December 2nd 2004, 12:51 AM

I have no idea. I have a lot of other projects that are a whole lot more meaningful to me. When are you going to admit that you misrepresented me after being called on it?

Dee Dee, I don't think I did. I cut out the parenthesis to show why I interpreted what you said in the manner I did and you said I had no right to do that and thus explain why I believed what I did. I don't think, I have misrepresented you. For you to prove that point is really easy. Draw a conclusion from the numerous photos and arguments against the global flood I have presented. That would prove me wrong about your willingness to change your mind. As it is, you want me to say that you are willing to change your mind sans any positive evidence for that willingness. Why should I do that? So, the short answer is I won't retract until you demonstrate an ability to actually change your mind. Then I will retract.

And in the past I have not had the time or the expertise. And when you were told that you simply mocked.

Don't try that lame excuse. How much expertise does it take to conclude that animals should not be walking around constantly during a global flood leaving footprints everywhere? Surely you don't expect people to believe you when you say that it is difficult to conclude from footprints, that 1. the water wasn't very deep, and 2. the animals didn't appear to be doing anything out of the ordinary even though a flood was supposedly going on. Is that a position you deem credible?

You asked again in your note to retract my misrepresentation of your willingness to change. I will when you actually show that you have changed your mind about something. And to claim that your focus is merely biblical is equivalent to saying that you wont' look at the data and change your interpretation i.e., your mind. Everything I see in you is that you are a very smart person who simply won't look at the data and won't change her mind. You can prove me wrong but it doesn't appear likely that you will do so. Does the weather forecast include a cold day in Hades?

goodnight, gotta go get my beauty sleep. Why don't we put this topic to bed until you actually show evidence of changing your mind. Good night.

spiritmech

December 2nd 2004, 01:04 AM

I'm TE and even I'm not too impressed with Glenn's approach in the past few posts. Waving your hands in front of "data" is just as bad as waving your hands in front of Bible verses.

shunyadragon

December 2nd 2004, 08:05 AM

Omitting the parenthesis is just about as bad as omitting the "not" in "The Pope is not the antichrist."
A closer look at the history of this epic war will reveal a different story. See below.

I'm relatively new here, and I haven't read all your earlier discussions. Maybe she doesn't want to accept your interpretation of the findings as divinely inspired. In other words, maybe she wants to ensure that the footprints really are footprints, that the cracks really are dessication cracks, that the vertical lines really are burrows, and that these features really do appear all the way through the layers of sediment. Maybe she doesn't have a specific question in mind, but simply wants to see how a YEC geologist responds.
Being relatively new here and not looking back into the threads puts you at a disadvantage of providing objective judgement since you by sympathetic association relate to DeeDee.

DeeDee has had years to to look at the evidence time is not an issue. The dispute between DeeDee and Glenn has been explosive and emotional for along time without trying to pick through the most recent roadside bombing to find a cause.

This new evidence has been lying around along time. The worldview of the church fathers has been lieing arond gathering dust. If it is so important why have they not read it before. I and others brought up St Augustine's worldview along time ago and the YECers ran like a flock of burning ducks, and vitually avoided adressing the issue.

I have experienced these fire fights and ambushes, and they have a distinct pattern to them. It is time you became familiar with there history before wading or wadding in too deep.

dizzle

December 2nd 2004, 10:13 AM

Dee Dee, I don't think I did. I cut out the parenthesis to show why I interpreted what you said in the manner I did and you said I had no right to do that and thus explain why I believed what I did. I don't think, I have misrepresented you.

You did and I answered all the rest of your post in my post - you don't wish to accept for me to have my own methodology. You completely misrepresented my post. My request for the ECF information from Constantine's research WAS my willingness - but I go about things my own way - the science is not paramount for me - the text is. Why should I believe you over dtyler? His posts are just as impressive as yours to a layperson. Or you over others who have explanations? You seem to think that YOU are the Holy Grail of Science and if the rest of the world doesn't bow to your science then they are just stubborn ingrates. Your textual attempts IMHO are abymysall. You keep harping on the science - the text interests me Glenn and you have shied away from interacting on the text with persons who actually know the original language. Perhaps it is YOU who are stubborn to change YOUR mind? It is YOU in fact who run from challenges from experts in the textual field - you run back to your science. No? Then finally engage GrayPilgrim on the text.

Either way doesn't matter to me. I don't care if you wish to deal with the text or not. You are happy with your interpretation - I am interested in the text. You simply shoved aside with further mockery what I stated, and contineud in your misrepresentation.

The simple fact is you misrepresented my statement. You inability to admit that is duly noted. You may have the last rant in this thread.

grmorton

December 2nd 2004, 10:31 AM

I'm TE and even I'm not too impressed with Glenn's approach in the past few posts. Waving your hands in front of "data" is just as bad as waving your hands in front of Bible verses.

THen why don't you take a look at my interpretation of the verses which is quite different. I believe Genesis teaches evolution. I don't hand wave across the verses, I just didn't post it all here in this thread

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Gen1-11.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/god-evol.htm

grmorton

December 2nd 2004, 10:33 AM

You did and I answered all the rest of your post in my post - you don't wish to accept for me to have my own methodology. You completely misrepresented my post. My request for the ECF information from Constantine's research WAS my willingness - but I go about things my own way - the science is not paramount for me - the text is. Why should I believe you over dtyler? His posts are just as impressive as yours to a layperson. Or you over others who have explanations? You seem to think that YOU are the Holy Grail of Science and if the rest of the world doesn't bow to your science then they are just stubborn ingrates. Your textual attempts IMHO are abymysall. You keep harping on the science - the text interests me Glenn and you have shied away from interacting on the text with persons who actually know the original language. Perhaps it is YOU who are stubborn to change YOUR mind? It is YOU in fact who run from challenges from experts in the textual field - you run back to your science. No? Then finally engage GrayPilgrim on the text.

Either way doesn't matter to me. I don't care if you wish to deal with the text or not. You are happy with your interpretation - I am interested in the text. You simply shoved aside with further mockery what I stated, and contineud in your misrepresentation.

The simple fact is you misrepresented my statement. You inability to admit that is duly noted. You may have the last rant in this thread.

There is one very easy way to prove me wrong in my interp of your position and you haven't tried that one yet. Change your mind on something.

It isn't all that difficult you know.

dizzle

December 2nd 2004, 10:49 AM

Glenn did you even read my prior posts. I listed a ton of things in the theological arena that I have. One of them even in the area of Genesis interpretation - i.e. I think the framework hypothesis has merit. I really wish you would push aside your dislike of YEC to hear what people are saying instead of thinking of what your necessary rebuttal must be - instead of - yeah once agan - you have misrepresented me. And I have read your interpretations Glenn, you had a whole thread here once on the issue - I don't find them persuasive and IIRC you shied away from strong challenges on the Hebrew. GrayPilgrim is back - why don't you invite him to a Tennis Court thread where he, a kknowledgeable YEC on the text - and you - can talk interpretation. In a TC thread it is just two people, not peanut gallery from either side. I would definitely watch such a thread with interest as the TEXT is my interest and personally I, so far, and I don't say never, don't find your interpretation plausible. I tend to agree with George Murphy that once you go down that road, it is more likely ahistorical, and then I agree with you, if it is ahistorical then it is meaningless, and the Bible is trashed. I know George disagrees with that - but I will give it up to George he dives into the text and zealously defends his interpretation. I am as uncomfortable with his position as you are - but in the same way you think his position is wrong, I think yours is inherently untenable and engages in special pleading to "save" the Bible from error.

I am willing to consider all evidence on that. You KNOW I am NOT a literalist - if you don'tbelieve it, head over to eschatology. ButI need to be convinced from the TEXT Glenn. That is why the ECF interest me. I still have Soc's old thread where he dealt with alleged support for TE or OEC from the ECF. I would liketo see what Constantine has to compare with that - to see if he has successfully overcame Soc's points. I am aware of the ECF - I am aware that Soc did a good job of defending against the use of them - however, that does not mean that others may not overcome his points. I am interested to see if Constantine has considered not only what he has found, but also YEC answers, and overcame them or raised new points.

Jugulum

December 2nd 2004, 10:54 AM

A closer look at the history of this epic war will reveal a different story. See below.

Being relatively new here and not looking back into the threads puts you at a disadvantage of providing objective judgement since you by sympathetic association relate to DeeDee.

DeeDee has had years to to look at the evidence time is not an issue. The dispute between DeeDee and Glenn has been explosive and emotional for along time without trying to pick through the most recent roadside bombing to find a cause.

This new evidence has been lying around along time. The worldview of the church fathers has been lieing arond gathering dust. If it is so important why have they not read it before. I and others brought up St Augustine's worldview along time ago and the YECers ran like a flock of burning ducks, and vitually avoided adressing the issue.

I have experienced these fire fights and ambushes, and they have a distinct pattern to them. It is time you became familiar with there history before wading or wadding in too deep. It may be that you're right, but I rather doubt it. You really should have included the next two paragraphs I wrote:

Maybe you're right, and it should be a matter of 5 minutes' study to ensure these things. (I did find that picture of the bird footprints with peck marks rather convincing.) Maybe she doesn't actually believe any of this, and she just likes to annoy you. Or maybe she's just a stupid, unreasoning, dyed-in-the-wool creationist after the pattern of the Flat Earth Society, who'll always stay in her cave and persecute you for trying to bring her into the light.

It really doesn't matter, because you didn't choose to argue about what she is, you chose to lie about what she says she is. Past firefights of any nature do not change Glenn's blatant misrepresentation of what DeeDee said. She did not say she will never change her mind, but Glenn childishly twisted her words into such an admission by "omitting the parenthesis," which contained her explanation of how she could change her mind. It doesn't matter if you or he or even I think her explanation is wrong, or an inaccurate statement of her real attitudes. It was not the admission Glenn persists in saying it was.

dizzle

December 2nd 2004, 11:32 AM

Jug, that is my point. If Glenn had said, well Dee Dee says this here but I rather doubt it considering our history blah blah - I may have been irked in another way, but I would not say he mispresented my statement. What he did is take my clear words and say "Wow that is so good you openly admitted you would not change your mind. That is refreshing."

That is NOT what I said. Not at all. And in fact the very fact that over my two years here I HAVE changed my mind on a Genesis position. If I had more time to read a bit more material, I would probably officialy be a FrameWork gal. That would have been unthinkable not too long ago. Again, notice what Framework deals with. The TEXT. I am interested in the TEXT. Had Constantine come and said about this great science research he did that changed his mind, I would never have posted on this thread. But he mentioned my interest, the TEXT, and how others have interpreted it, others very close to the time of the NT Apostles, or at least much closer than us. That does not make them normative, the ECF screwed up a lot in eschatology, but it is an important factor to consider.

My words were twisted by Glenn. Blatantly.

grmorton

December 2nd 2004, 01:55 PM

I am willing to consider all evidence on that. You KNOW I am NOT a literalist - if you don'tbelieve it, head over to eschatology.

Quite honestly, I had never had an inkling that you weren't a literalist until this message. You have always held out for YEC and the only reason one can be YEC is because one thinks that the text, read literally, requires it. But, Dee Dee, our discussions on these issues have been too short and usually with you mad at me to fully know your position. Just because you know your position is no reason to think everyone reads every word you write with baited breath. I have seen you discount observational data after observational data as if it had no bearing upon what actually happened in the flood, as if only the text is an important input to the problem. When you have that approach you will never change. One must deal with both sides of the coin but you have often claimed that you don't have the expertise to draw a logical conclusion from what should be an elementary piece of observational data. Your approach is very Scholastic (and I mean that in the sense of a medieval Scholastic who apochrypha says preferred to deduce the number of teeth in a horses mouth from the text but wouldn't open the mouth of a horse to actually count the teeth)

ButI need to be convinced from the TEXT Glenn. That is why the ECF interest me.

That is interesting. How exactly is the text going to justify animals walking around in the global flood leaving footrprints everywhere on hundreds of individual layers and how is the text going to justify animals burrowing constantly throughout the geologic column when tons upon tons of new material is deposited upon them every day? How is the text going to explain the existence of desciccation cracks in the deposits of each era in the geologic column? How is the text going to justify the evaporation of thousands of feet of sea water to leave hundreds of feet of rock salt interbedded in the geologic column--especially when the flood was supposed to be wet rather than dry? How is the text going to justify the existence of dinosaur nests, termite nests, cicada burrows in the global flood? Remember cicadas only come out every few years, but there in the middle of the geologic column are cicada burrows. How is the text going to justify the 35 km worth of erosion of extremely hard rocks in the Scottish highlands in 6000 years? How is the text going to justify Noah and company breathing sulfur dioxide in copious quantities if you have all the volcanism on earth occur in a one year time frame? (see http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&u=/ap/20041202/ap_on_sc/st__helens_pollution_2&printer=1 ) The text won't explain the observational data and when you say you want to be convinced from the text, one can't interpret the text about the flood without at the same time discussing logic of things seen in geology. If one can't explain the geologic record rapidly, then the earth simple can't be young. But refusing to draw conclusions from the observational data (even observational data of footprints everywhere )means you won't change.

And without that observational data as a prod, there is no reason to change. If one reads a text as saying that the sky is green with purple polka dots it is easy, then, to believe that the sky is green with purple polkadots so long as one refuses to actually look at the sky. You are refusing to look at the sky and thus you will not change.

As I have said, you can prove me wrong, but if your only input is the text, then I would say you won't.
You expect to come to the truth using only half of the information.
I still have Soc's old thread where he dealt with alleged support for TE or OEC from the ECF. I would liketo see what Constantine has to compare with that - to see if he has successfully overcame Soc's points. I am aware of the ECF - I am aware that Soc did a good job of defending against the use of them - however, that does not mean that others may not overcome his points. I am interested to see if Constantine has considered not only what he has found, but also YEC answers, and overcame them or raised new points.

Those texts won't explain how the quantity of rock eroded in the Wind River Mountains could actually be eroded in 6000 years, so the texts, while useful in showing that some prominent ancient Christians didn't believe in YEC, they won't explain the geologic data. ONe must look at it and draw conclusions in order to explain the actual data.

I have made my observations of your methodology. Since it takes two to argue, I will stop here. You can easily prove me wrong by incorporating observational evidence into your methodology, but you won't. You can have the last word defending why one doesn't need to actually look at the observatoinal evidence.

Soundsurfr

December 2nd 2004, 02:04 PM

You can have the last word defending why one doesn't need to actually look at the observatoinal evidence.
:popcorn:

dizzle

December 2nd 2004, 02:26 PM

Only a few comments, the rest have already been said.

Quite honestly, I had never had an inkling that you weren't a literalist until this message.

I have said that numerous times here on the forum. Also you are very well aware I am a preterist. Preterists don't have a reputation for being literalists.

You have always held out for YEC and the only reason one can be YEC is because one thinks that the text, read literally, requires it.

As Jaltus would say, no, I think it read literarily requires it.

My interest is if the text allows other interpretations. I start with the text to see what range it allows. None of this supports your blatant misuse of my words in this thread. You quoted only what I said here, not in anyother thread, and then you said "wow, thank you for admitting you will never change your mind." And that is not what I said. You need to have the backbone to admit Glenn that such is what you did. All of this other stuff is diversions from that very point. You took what I said here and twisted it. In fact you even quoted part of it to show that it was from that very statement that you got that meaning.

And you have once again deftly missed my point. Since you are not stupid by any stretch, I have to begin to think it is intentional.

For instance

Those texts won't explain how the quantity of rock eroded in the Wind River Mountains could actually be eroded in 6000 years, so the texts, while useful in showing that some prominent ancient Christians didn't believe in YEC, they won't explain the geologic data. ONe must look at it and draw conclusions in order to explain the actual data.

I never asked for the TEXT to explain these things, I asked for the TEXT to determine what explanations are within the range allowed by the TEXT. This is not complicated Glenn. You have shied away from serious debate from qualified YEC persons over your textual interpretation - that has been YOUR methodology. GP knows Hebrew - show me from the TEXT that your interpretation is viable. If it isn't you have got some great science Glenn, but it falsifies the Bible. If it is, show all of us by being able to defend against experts who know their stuff. I don't think your Hebrew passes muster and you avoid putting it through the fire. You fall back on your science, but of what worth is it to Christian faith if it cannot pass the test of the TEXT. In my opinion, none. You claim to be taking the whole package, but I don't see that you are. I see that your view leads only logically to George's without massive special pleading, and that George's, as you think, makes an ashistorical mess out of the beginning of redemption.

You keep going round and round of accusing me of all sorts of things, Glenn, but you have never accepted a direct challenge from a YEC textual expert to put your interpretation to the text. At least not here. It can be arranged.

spiritmech

December 2nd 2004, 02:59 PM

THen why don't you take a look at my interpretation of the verses which is quite different. I believe Genesis teaches evolution. I don't hand wave across the verses, I just didn't post it all here in this thread

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Gen1-11.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/god-evol.htm

Perhaps you don't, but your work is done. You've done your research, you've laid it out. There's no need to insult Dee Dee. You can go home and pray the Holy Spirit changes her mind, if it's that important to you that she change her mind. Your approach of "change your mind or else" is really heavy-handed and is not any way to win converts to the TE position.

Dee Dee will look at the evidence *as she has time* and she'll change her mind (or not) based on what she finds out.

Steve

grmorton

December 2nd 2004, 04:27 PM

You keep going round and round of accusing me of all sorts of things, Glenn, but you have never accepted a direct challenge from a YEC textual expert to put your interpretation to the text. At least not here. It can be arranged.

As I recall, last July you posted a question to Biblical Languages about this issue. I looked at the thread and there were no takers to your question. So it isn't true that my views have not accepted a challenge. You challenged it yourself. The thread does seem to have disappeared now but I did look at it at the time and you did refer to it in another thread, Open Letter to TEs

dizzle

December 2nd 2004, 04:42 PM

Your post made no sense. If I posted a challenge, and I don't recall ever doing so, and that is not a thread title I can see myself making (George once accepted my invation to explicate his views in Bib Lan - he has always been willing) then if no one answered Glenn then that means no one did accept a challenge. Perhaps I did and don't recall. I remember asking you to zealously defend your Hebrew before. I am not speaking of "no one" Glenn I am speaking of you. Quite some time ago you were challenged on your creative use of the Hebrew - you balked at provign it. Perhaps tempers were too hot at that time. You have never went toe to toe with a qualified YEC in Hebrew - I do not believe your interpretation holds water, but then again, I would like to see it under fire so to speak to make that determination.

You still misrepresented me, and should still concede that.

spiritmech

December 2nd 2004, 04:43 PM

As I recall, last July you posted a question to Biblical Languages about this issue. I looked at the thread and there were no takers to your question. So it isn't true that my views have not accepted a challenge. You challenged it yourself. The thread does seem to have disappeared now but I did look at it at the time and you did refer to it in another thread, Open Letter to TEs

If you're going to ding Dee Dee for not changing her mind you're going to have to take responsibility for putting your understanding of the NT texts to the test. What posts have you made to the effect of:

"Hey, this is my view of the NT with respect to evolution. What do you guys think?"

Otherwise you're being just as lazy/closed-minded/whatever as you say Dee Dee is. If you have done this, please provide links or the phone number where I can buy the tapes.

Thanks,
Steve

grmorton

December 2nd 2004, 04:45 PM

Perhaps you don't, but your work is done. You've done your research, you've laid it out. There's no need to insult Dee Dee. You can go home and pray the Holy Spirit changes her mind, if it's that important to you that she change her mind. Your approach of "change your mind or else" is really heavy-handed and is not any way to win converts to the TE position.

Dee Dee will look at the evidence *as she has time* and she'll change her mind (or not) based on what she finds out.

Steve

THere is nothing insulting in pointing out that one doesn't want to accept the data unless one considers that an insult. From my perspective an insult is saying someone is a #$%#@@# lying #$%#@#$. Saying what one observes can only be insulting if the person doesn't see what others see and doesn't want to accept that. In this case, Dee Dee has consistently stated that the only input she wants is the text. That won't solve the problem and she won't change.

From http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=364934&postcount=123
The only reason inerrancy becomes an issue is because the atheist (and I am not going to keep adding my qualifiers that I am referring to a specific subgroup I have made that plain enough) agrees that the text clearly teaches a YEC view, and an inerrantist doesn’t have the “out” that it is in error. Just looking at the text, that is what it clearly teaches.

ANd Dee Dee won't like this one brought back from the grave from:http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=610791&postcount=31

Quote:
Originally Posted by grmorton

Let's assume you are correct. When we get certain knowledge that our interpretation is false but then say that we can't re-interpret it, this is the situation that drives so many ex-YECs into atheism. If we have certain knowledge that our interpretation is wrong, then we darn well better re-interpret it.

If the text allows it. We cannot re-interpret Genesis to mean that there is no God. The text doesn't allow that. That is an extreme example, but it goes to show there are limits to what the text will allow. If when taking away one belief a Biblically credible alternative is not offered, then the person doing the argument is doing a disservice. Questioning that something is Biblically possible is not an attack, it is what we are commanded to do as Christians. To test the spirits.

I interpret the above as saying that even if the data says an interpretation is wrong, we can't re-interpret unless the text allows it. I have presented a view that I believe fits the text. Dee Dee ask others on the Biblical language forum about it but got no response as of a week or two later. What YECs are doing is exactly like not looking at the sky to see that it isn't green with purple polkadots that their text says it is.

This is my final thought on this thread. It is just going round the merry go round.

dizzle

December 2nd 2004, 04:48 PM

THere is nothing insulting in pointing out that one doesn't want to accept the data unless one considers that an insult. From my perspective an insult is saying someone is a #$%#@@# lying #$%#@#$. Saying what one observes can only be insulting if the person doesn't see what others see and doesn't want to accept that. In this case, Dee Dee has consistently stated that the only input she wants is the text. That won't solve the problem and she won't change.

I will change if the text allows other positions Glenn. You are not that thick. It is insulting to have my direct words quoted and twisted as you did in this thread.

If the text allows no other alternative, then no I will not change my mind unless I am ready to renounce my faith. If the text allows other alternatives, then I am open to other interpretations as I have proven with every single other doctrine I hold. Glenn continues to mislead.

John Reece

December 2nd 2004, 05:16 PM

I will change if the text allows other positions Glenn. You are not that thick. It is insulting to have my direct words quoted and twisted as you did in this thread.

If the text allows no other alternative, then no I will not change my mind unless I am ready to renounce my faith. If the text allows other alternatives, then I am open to other interpretations as I have proven with every single other doctrine I hold. Glenn continues to mislead.

Kudos, Dee Dee.

Blessings,

John

Abigail

December 2nd 2004, 05:29 PM

I interpret the above as saying that even if the data says an interpretation is wrong, we can't re-interpret unless the text allows it.
Yes Glenn if this is DDW's view then it is the correct view to take. The Bible is inspired so we know that whatever God meant will be the right view. If God leant down now and said to you that He did create in 6 days 6000 years ago then I am sure you would have to conclude you had made an error in your interpretation of the data ie what I am saying here is that there is a *right* interpretation of the text. For us sometimes it is easier to show interpretations which are obviously fatally flawed and are therefore impossible ie if I said to you I am thinking of a number in the 2 times table and you said your data made you conclude the number I was thinking of was 5 then I would know that your data must be flawed. Because the Bible is inspired I feel it is the surer of the two sets of data ie to me it is worth more than anything man-science can come up with, so I would never ever go with a scientific view which I knew was fatally incompatible with the text. I stick with YEC because for me up 'til now it seems texturally the best interpretation going. Texturally for me it has the most consistency. So Glenn to sum up if you want your view to be in the running amongst those who value the text more then science you must attend to the textural possibilities of your view.

sylas

December 2nd 2004, 05:33 PM

...In this case, Dee Dee has consistently stated that the only input she wants is the text. ...

I will change if the text allows other positions Glenn. ...

I have deliberately removed from these extracts some context, to emphasize what has stuck out to me like a beacon in this thread.

Despite the bad feeling, Glenn and Dee Dee have at least one point of agreement here.

Other relevant threads here are:

Open Letter to TEs in Natural Science 301. (Posted July 2 2004, by Dee Dee Warren)
Alright then YEC's convince me ... in Biblical Languages 301. (Posted July 26 2004, by jason)
Correct Genesis interpretation by a rookie in Biblical Languages 301. (Posted June 19 2004, by Augustine2004)
Deep Theistic Evolution in Cosmogony 201. (Posted July 3 2004 in Biblical Languages 301, by George Murphy; moved to Cosmogeny 201 in September)

The first and last are particularly relevant. The thread by George Murphy is really interesting; go to the start of the thread.

Unfortunately, the present engagement with that thread involves a couple of folks recognized right across the board by every side of debate as people who cannot figure out how to make a sensible engagement on anything.

I'm itching to say a few more things here, but I have to run. I will post again later.

Cheers -- Sylas

dizzle

December 2nd 2004, 05:37 PM

I didn't even remember that first one - the one by George is very indepth. I give it up to George, he dives right in and zealously defends his interpretation.

I remember that first thread now it is the one that led to the one in Bib Lang - Deep TE. At the time GrayPilgrim had went on leave, and it was his input that I had highly wanted to see. I would like to see Glenn interact on it - not to debate with George - Glenn and I both agree that right now that is not an option but to see Glenn interact with a qualified YEC on the text.

Thanks for those links Sylas when I get the time to do more study those will be useful. I download threads for later use very frequently. But it is the text that is determinative for me.

and I say once again because this is going off into a tangent - I don't have the time right now - Glenn misrepresneted me. My quote did not say I would never change my mind. Every single thing in this thread has indicated that I would change my mind - IF I can be convinced that hte text allows so. I have already become pretty convinced that the text can allow a Framework View.

Glenn is unwilling to fess up to his misuse of me, that loss then frankly is his. I am glad he does finally undertand my bottom line: the text. Why in the world he would think I would not want him to dig up that quote is beyond me. It represents perfectly my attitude - and what I have been saying here. It is apparent that Glenn disdains those who hold the text primary - well that is a different story and that is his perogative. I holdthe text primary - wihtout shame or apology.

Augustine2004

December 3rd 2004, 03:00 AM

I read the exchange between DDW and GRM with puzzlement. One must have faith in God above all. But one cannot have faith in something one does not know anything about. And to have faith in something that is not God -- is wrong also. (I don't know whether God would forgive honest misunderstanding or misapprehension, but that is another topic.) It may be that today the Bible is the only way we can come to know what we need to know about God. That is not to say that we must disdain whatever means we have available to understand the Bible -- concordances, encyclopedias of the Bible, interlinear Bibles, ANE studies, archaeological reports, etc. We should use them, because we can't just read the Bible like we can read a children's primer about the world.

Here I must confess that I have not trained to be a scholar of ANE cultures, especially Biblical ones. I only trained to be an engineer and worked a while as a software engineer. However, the Bible says to get all the understanding you can get. At the very least perhaps my posts like this one will show the experts what corrections my understanding need to receive and what gaps there are in my knowledge.

My understanding is that Genesis allows several possible interpretations and it is impossible to determine which one is the correct one. I am baffled why the YEC people are so sure they have the right interpretation. I am also baffled why GRM's interpretation is being so roundly denounced. It might not be a likely interpretation, but is it not POSSIBLE at all?

Many weeks ago I ordered a Hebrew grammar, but the bookstore had trouble getting my order filled or so it claimed. Since then, I've let things slide. Not any more. I'm going to order tomorrow. I don't know when I will learn enough to resurrect the thread 'Correct Genesis Interpretation by A Rookie', but I now have some hope Gray P will go over Genesis word by word with me, time permitting.

Let me make a parting shot . . . I did a thought experiment about a child asking his dad, "Why is the sky blue?" The dad could say, "Because that's in the way God created everything." Or he could say, "Rayleigh scattering of solar photons." How would you answer the question? Now after you've thought of an answer, try to think of how you would explain Genesis to an ancient Hebrew who is only beginning to study everything. How would God explain Genesis to us benighted souls?

Abigail

December 3rd 2004, 06:04 AM

My understanding is that Genesis allows several possible interpretations and it is impossible to determine which one is the correct one. How do you know 100% that it is impossible I am also baffled why GRM's interpretation is being so roundly denounced. It might not be a likely interpretation, but is it not POSSIBLE at all? This is just provocative Augustine. No one has seen Glenn's interpretation go under the grammatical/textural spotlight so his interpretation is UNPROVEN. What is roundly denounced is Glenn's insistence that we accept his view on science regardless of what the text might or might not allow

Many weeks ago I ordered a Hebrew grammar, but the bookstore had trouble getting my order filled or so it claimed. Since then, I've let things slide. Not any more. Yeah, I also want to really get my teeth into this area. Perhaps we should start a section in Biblical languages.

dizzle

December 3rd 2004, 07:36 AM

reyvin

December 3rd 2004, 10:07 AM

Augustine - Jesus said let those who are heavey-laden and weary come to Him.

Is is possible He was primarily referrign to a first century maternity ward?

Of course not.

Yes that is a ridiculous example but one to prove that there are things that are impossible.

Glenn's interpretation at one point hinges upon "let the earth bring forth" being something that is consistent with evolution amongst other things. A person here who is getting IIRC his doctorate in Hebrew disputed that was possible - Glenn at that time IIRC appealed to unnamed Hebrew scholars. It is my understanding that at key points his interpretation ranges from highly unlikely to impossible. Yes it is possible to have an impossible understanding unless we are going to be perputual and unreasonable sceptics.

As to the first part, I've got to heartily agree. As I'd said in past threads, the books of Acts is NOT how to make a good turkey sandwich. However, could Genesis be more akin to Revelations? Which is to say, we should pay more attention to what God was trying to say than perhaps what the writer believed. The authors of holy writ shouldn't be considered infallible but the text should, IMHO.
Look at messianic prophecy. Indeed it fits what we know to be Christ but did Isaiah (for example) have the name Jesus Christ in any of his writing? What about other prophecies? It was impossible for prophets to know, from their own cultural background, all of the contents of God's prophecies. They were often confronted with revelations they had to pronounce without fully understanding them (e.g., Dan. 9:20-27). Certainly Genesis is history but as I'd said to Socrates in the past, its not the same sort as you'd find in a typical high-school history book. But just because we today don't narrate history in the same style as the ancients may had, doesn't mean they weren't telling history.

Basically I'm saying that possibilities can only go so far within the words used, but Jesus is the final authority on the Word. Not linguists, tradition or any other commentator.

dizzle

December 3rd 2004, 10:10 AM

As to the first part, I've got to heartily agree. As I'd said in past threads, the books of Acts is NOT how to make a good turkey sandwich.

It isn't??? :doh:

However, could Genesis be more akin to Revelations?

Oh Rey, they are going to strip my Preterist badge if you, grasshopper, just put an S at the end of Revelation. Tell me it ain't so. But no Genesis is not akin to Revelation - Revelation is written in a distinct genre. This would be like saying couldn't Acts be akin to Revelation. No.

reyvin

December 3rd 2004, 02:07 PM

It isn't??? :doh:

Oh Rey, they are going to strip my Preterist badge if you, grasshopper, just put an S at the end of Revelation. Tell me it ain't so. But no Genesis is not akin to Revelation - Revelation is written in a distinct genre. This would be like saying couldn't Acts be akin to Revelation. No.

lol....yea I thought I made a booboo by sticking an 's' on there.

What I'm driving at is the point Paul Copan made in his book, 'Thats Just Your Interpretation' when he made the claim that Genesis is unlike other books of the Bible. I'm not saying that Revelation is equal to Genesis....but I am saying that Genesis is not on equal footing with say, Jeremiah. There are obvious non-literal elements in the text which is what makes it more like Revelation than Jeremiah.

Jugulum

December 3rd 2004, 04:17 PM

It may need some editing but I'll post it as soon as its ready. Constantine,

Did you mean that you'll post it in this thread when it's ready? Or should I watch for a new thread?

Augustine2004

December 3rd 2004, 04:27 PM

obvious non-literal elements in the text which is what makes it more like Revelation than Jeremiah.Obvious? I am just a klutz at reading the Bible especially Genesis!:doh:

Constantine

December 4th 2004, 03:05 AM

Glenn and Dee Dee:

I think you both are right in part. Glenn is right that you cannot ignore the physical data or else you will look foolish and not win anything but mockery for Christianity. But Dee Dee is right in that you can't just say "well the data says this so then the Bible must mean this". Although you should see if your Biblical interpretation is consistent with scientific fact you should also make sure that it is consistent with the Bible as well. I think the "Days of Proclamation" view has merit, but I think insisting that Dee Dee change based solely on the data is dangerous. If you first present your Biblical interpratation and then show it is not only consistent with the Bible but also with nature then you'll have better luck at getting a discussion out of her about this. Then again I've not been here long enough to know if she really will discuss it in such fashion, but I will give her the benefit of a doubt.

Please also don't loose sight that both of you mean well. You obviously have some tense moments between you two but neither one of you is out to get the other one. It is the opposing views you guys dislike not the opposing debaters.

But to be completely honest, I disagree with you both. I'm more inclined to believe in a non-historical view of Genesis like George Murphy. I think that is the most consistent view (that Genesis 1 and 2 are symbolic not historical) with the Bible. And I think that trying to turn the Bible into some book on natural history is a mistake and it will only distract you from the important things.

Getting back on topic....

Did you mean that you'll post it in this thread when it's ready? Or should I watch for a new thread?

It is a couple pages long on Microsoft Word so due to its length and the fact that the last few pages of this thread have been a bit distracting from the original topic I think I will make a new thread when it is ready. It is already written up but I currently trying to locate online versions of the texts I qouted because I no longer have them at my disposal incase there are any conflicts over their context and to make it easier for people to look it up them selves.

Glenn: I've found more good quotes from the Early Church Fathers and online sources to go along with them. When I'm done putting the piece together you'll be the first to know. I really appreciate the interest and the offer to put them on your website. Hopefully they will help many other people as much as they helped me.

reyvin

December 4th 2004, 10:03 AM

Obvious? I am just a klutz at reading the Bible especially Genesis!:doh:

Sure, seems fairly obvious....talking snake in Gen 3 we typically understand to be Satan but the text never comes right out and says it. In Gen 1 itself, the numbers 7/3/10 and 21 (7x3) show up throughout the text. It's at least semi-poetic (although not fully) in style. This doesn't mean its not historical but it isn't straight up history how we tell it today....there are things to look for.
See John Ransoms debate (Soc bowed out of it appears....it was a long while back) with Socrates: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1892&highlight=johnransom+socrates
Thought John made an excellent case against the YE view.

A Beautiful Truth

December 8th 2004, 12:36 AM

And I think that trying to turn the Bible into some book on natural history is a mistake and it will only distract you from the important things.

I agree but how do you reconcile natural history with an historical Adam? Is Eve and he the parents of all humanity or not? Or do you put him back five million years as Glenn does in order to have the natural history correct?

Constantine

December 9th 2004, 12:30 AM

I agree but how do you reconcile natural history with an historical Adam? Is Eve and he the parents of all humanity or not? Or do you put him back five million years as Glenn does in order to have the natural history correct?

I'm not an anthropologist so I can't say with certainty when Adam lived. But I do know it would have to have been atleast 200,000 years ago.

I think of it this way:

After Adam and Eve were banished from what/wherever Paradise was they were left to carve out an existence on earth on their own. When that happened isn't really all that important. Of course we don't want it to be inconsistent with natural history so we can't just pick a date. However, modern man is 200,000 years old and out mtDNA says that mankinds last single mother lived about that time. So then I would venture to guess that Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens and lived between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago.

But then again I might instead place Adam as the first Homo erectus so that would place him at about 2.5 million years. I'm not sure but I am trying to find out. But the point is that whether Adam was Homo erectus or Homo sapien it doesn't affect the theology if you have a symbolic interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

A Beautiful Truth

December 9th 2004, 12:13 PM

Of course we don't want it to be inconsistent with natural history so we can't just pick a date.

Glenn Morton has considered this carefully and put him back five million years in order to have consisitency with Nat. history. If you really want Adam and Eve to be the parents of all humanity, AND you want agreement with Nat. history, you HAVE to consider his arguments. I do not believe you can have both a literal Adam and a symbolic Genesis.

I am still trying to figure it out myself...

rogero

December 10th 2004, 07:51 PM

I finally got my home DSL connection back and have time to reply.

...
Do you think it is acceptable for people to misrepresent other people's opinions in this way, rogero?

It's funny you should mention that, since you misrepresented mine in the following paragraph.

While I've got your attention, I can't help but note that I find your usage of the appellation "sycophant" quite humerous (sic) - because it so perfectly describes your attitude towards Glenn. It seems that the sum total of your contribution to any debate involving Glenn is "Yeah! Glenn rules!". You did the same thing in my last discussion with Glenn - even though it turned out I was right and Glenn was wrong on the issue under discussion.

I concur with Glennn's views on geology because I find them compelling and believe them to be correct, not because I am a "sycophant" but because I have a modicum of geological training myself. I respect and admire Glennn (and am a bit jealous) since his geological knowledge, both theoretical and empirical, is light-years ahead of mine.

By "my last discussion with Glennn" do you mean the thread on information? I recall you taking pleasure in patting yourself on the back with superior knowledge of definitions, minutiae, and ergodic theory, in showing Glennn wrong any way you could.

But fill me in -- did you ever come up with a definition of information that could NOT increase under the conditions posited for biological evolution? If so, you should publish these results, because your YEC friends could benefit greatly from your erudite brilliance.

R

grmorton

December 10th 2004, 10:01 PM

Rogero? Sycophantic? :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl:

As I recall, on another list I found out some of the areas Rogero and I part theological paths. Got my ideas battered--If he is a sychophant, he is abad sychophant! Do as you are told, bad, bad bad sychophant. I am going to get the rolled up newspaper now :teeth:

reyvin

December 13th 2004, 09:05 AM

Thought this might be helpful also in the discussion.