Re: Seeking Evolutionists explanation of "observed" evolution

On Jan 16, 1:23 am, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Jan 14, 5:46 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

Why are you assuming that I [and] my arguments apply to all texts?  

It's called being objective, even-handed - a fair reaction to what you
are advocating. If your argument only applies to the Bible then
pointing out your worldview is fair game and explains your "argument".

Ray, I notice that you have carefully snipped my explanation of why I
apply one standard to the Bible and others to other texts.  This saves
you the trouble of responding to it, helps you pretend I have not
offered it, and enables you to shift the argument to my "worldview"
rather than address the actual issue: how you interpret the Bible, and
how you decide that certain interpretations are "corrupt" while
others, equally fanciful and even more arbitrary, are what the Bible
really means.

You do realize, I hope, that you make yourself look dishonest,
cowardly, and contemptible when you behave this way.

SNIP....

....The conflicts between the literal
sense of scripture and common sense and science have been acknowledged
since the intertestamental period as demanding special exegetical
techniques for scripture, that are not necessarily applicable to
secular literature.

Reference....cite....?

I ran across this in James L. Kugel's _How to Read the Bible_.  He
notes that by the 2nd century before Christ, Jewish commentators had
already wrestled with two problematic passages in Genesis: the bit
about three days of creation before God got around to creating the sun
(whose [apparent] motion in the sky marks out days), and the part
where God threatens Adam that if he eats of the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil, "in that day thou shalt surely die," whereupon Adam ate
of the tree and lived another 900 years or so.  They applied a phrase
from a verse in the Psalms, and decided that the "days" used by God
were really 1000 years long, and didn't depend on the motion of the
sun.

You will note that they would not assume that anyone else meant "1000
years," when he said "day," no matter how many problems with his text
it might solve (as in, e.g. "I'll publish my paper some day soon").
They would assume, for any text that might contain errors, that an
prima facie absurd passage was simply an error.  Because they held (as
you do) that the Bible does not contain errors, they held that it must
be interpreted in ways that are not obvious without detailed
reflection and an extensively figurative reading of the text.  And
this tradition continued, in both Christian and Jewish hands, for
centuries afterwards.

Comment describes scripture with the qualifying phrase "literal sense"
- the same is unexplained as to what is meant. Phrase gives the
appearance that scripture does not mean what it says or say what it
means; the same presupposes scripture as false and must be treated
differently. Comment also presupposes that conflict exists between
"literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. Again, I am
only pointing out presuppositions, that is, things that are assumed to
be factual by supposition and not by evidence. But Steven is saying
these suppositions are based on evidence. Of course Christians
disagree.

Ray, the "literal sense" is the sense in which Biblical references to
a "canopy" (_raqiyah_) with "windows" in it refer to a Babylonian-
style cosmology in which the sky is a literal dome with hatches or
holes in it which can be opened to let rain through or closed to keep
rain from falling.  The "literal sense" is the sense in which "God
made Adam from the dust of the Earth" is held to describe a man being
shaped out of mud and being transformed into living tissue.  And, yes,
there is a real conflict between science and common sense, on the one
hand, and the idea that the Earth was created four days before the sun
it orbits.

In reality we know only of scripture as opposed to "literal sense"
scripture; and there is no reason to assume these Texts to be in
conflict with common sense or science. Remarkable evidence supporting
this claim is that over half of all adults in the U.S. are
Creationists. This means tens of millions of persons see scripture as
corresponding to common sense and science. With this said we can now
ask: who would presume the Bible to not mean what it says or be false
or not correspond to common sense and science?

First of all, does the Bible correspond to science better in the
United States than it does in, say, France?  In general, creationists
are less well-educated than are people who accept evolution (we see,
e.g. that while half the general population are creationists, this
drops to about a fourth of college graduates, and much, much lower
figures for people with scientific or even engineering degrees).  The
percentage of creationists among actual scientists is miniscule.  It
is hardly absurd to suspect that most people who see no conflict
between the Bible and science are grossly ignorant of science, or the
Bible, or both.  If tens of millions of people hold that a book they
haven't read is in perfect agreement with a field of research they've
never studied, how is that evidence that this Book actually agrees
with science?

Answer: persons who advocate Atheist-evolutionism.

I cannot imagine that Kenneth Miller, for example, is an advocate of
"atheist-evolutionism," nor does it seem at all likely that Francis
Collins is such.  But even putting aside the number of people you call
"atheist-evolutionists" despite their own insistence that they believe
in God, you are arguing that people's presuppositions can make them
embrace patently false propositions, even on subjects on which they
are well-aquainted with the evidence.  Yet you insist that half the
U.S. population, speaking on subjects (biology, paleontology,
cosmology, etc.) on which they know next to nothing, are immune to
having their conclusions warped by their presuppositions, simply
because you agree with those presuppositions.

Now the presuppositions are explained.

One presupposition remains unexplained: your presupposition that
whatever Gene Scott said about the Bible must be correct, while all
contrary opinions are "corruption."

Indeed -- and this is my point -- it is typical to assume this.  You
yourself have mocked the "fundies" who interpret certain passages of
the Bible more literally, or in the context of a different
interpretive tradition, than you do.  

False. I do not mock Fundies for "literality" (whatever that means),
but for corruption.

That would be "in the context of a different interpretive tradition,"
Ray.  In Rayspeak (as opposed to Standard English), "corruption" means
"seeing things differently from Ray and his idol, Gene Scott."

You complain that I insist that
the Bible makes no objective claims, yet, in previous posts, when I
have listed some of the objective claims that the Bible makes, you
insist that it says no such things.  

Such as....

Examples follow.  Have you ever considered learning to read for
comprehension?  But I still recall you snipping away, without comment
or acknowledgment, all my explanation of why the Bible is interpreted
differently from secular text.  I think that you, like many
creationists, read for incomprehension.

When I point out that previous
generations of Christians, including the leaders of the Protestant
Reformation, explicitly espoused these claims, you complain that I am
insisting that Medieval interpretations of the Bible should be
normative -- implying that the Bible's meaning must be determined in
light of the most modern scholarship, and might not be apparent on the
surface.

Given your propensity to misrepresent the Bible and Christianity, I
would have to review the arguments you are speaking about before I
could comment.

We know that both Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed with the popes
that the Copernican heliocentric solar system contradicted the plain
sense of the Bible.  Are they inferior, as scholars and Bible
interpreters, to Gene Scott?  Do you have any advantage, in
determining the true, non-"corrupt" meaning of the Bible, over them,
except later scientific knowledge?  If not, ought you not defer to the
greater scientific knowledge, on the subject of biology, of such
theistic evolutionists as Ken Miller?

The Bible, read literally, says quite explicitly that the sky is a
solid dome with openings.  

False. That is your ignorant reading attempting to make the Bible look
silly. Since you believe there is no difference bewteen 'inference'
and 'real time observation' maybe your comprehension abilities are
truly in a state of retardation.

Then explain, please, why the Bible repeatedly speaks of God opening
"the windows of heaven."  And then explain why your exegesis of these
passages is less strained or more reasonable that theistic
evolutionists' exegesis of the opening chapters of Genesis.

It says, quite explicitly, that the Earth
stands immobile while the sun goes around it (possibly attached to the
aforementioned giant collander overhead).  

False - same answer above.

Why false?  Because you say so?  We know from your snipping of my
argument above that you are a liar and a coward.  Those are not
particularly convincing qualifications for issuing infallible fatwas
about the true meaning of scripture.

It says, quite explicitly,
that every human born is a direct creation of God.  

True.

See, no one is wrong all of the time.

But be advised: I will explain what this means in my forth-coming
paper.

Lying makes baby Jesus cry, Ray.





You reject
entirely the first two statements, and interpret the other to somehow
permit humans to originate both through embryology and through
creation.  Or,

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ouch!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 5 reasons to chuck Darwinism
    ... Science" or "Intelligent Design" is a modern reactionary product against the ... creationism is a reaction against Darwinism. ... thinking prior to Darwin was just common sense, ... judgment of God, that man would never fly, that we would never travel to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... someone is to prove a god exists it won't be you George as even if you ... Also in science you never prove anything unless ... Favourite terms are 'common sense', ... Physics and chemistry are science not religion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: are "we," modern humans, about 195,000 years old or only 40,000 years old?
    ... We have to interpret it as best we can as we ... The whole function of science is to foster understanding so we can ... Ancient Sapiens who emerged perhaps 195,000 years ago? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • In defense of common sense
    ... quantum mechanics and relativity, arguably the two most successful theories ... the widespread belief that science and common sense are ... many scientists came to see common sense as an impediment to ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Howard Hersheys crooked thinking
    ... I never claimed to have been speaking for Darwinian "science" - just ... religious opinion masquerading as "common sense" and amounting to ... evidence and then either provide an alternative *testable* explanation ... earth on the dome of the sky rather than that the earth rotates around ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading