Avoiding Questions from Evolutionists

[CryptoLutheran]

You're thinking like a Western person in 2011 AD.

Think like an Israelite in ???? BCE, because that's the point of view from which the story of the sun standing still is told. That is to say, they didn't know the earth rotated around the sun. They just know that the sun was out much longer than it should have been.

This would also be what I'd argue concerning the early chapters of Genesis; that an ancient bronze age people trying to explain certain things about the world they live in is through stories, narratives--mythologies--that in a meaningful way contextualize the world in a grand scheme.

That they are mythologies rather than literal history by no means robs them of their divine inspiration, sacredness and essential value to the Biblical story or Christian redemption narrative, and what they teach us about God, creation, man, sin (etc) is all there, and still provides a narrative function within the broader story of Israel which Genesis provides as a prologue to Exodus.

That is my argument, and it comes from a position--and I think it's so often lost in the talking back and forth--that God is capable of speaking to us through a multitude of human communication forms, from poetry, history to epistles and apocalypse, and yes mythology. Mythology is a universal form of human communication, from the ancient Near East to the Greeks the Chinese the Mayans and Polynesians. The telling of stories is bound into our ways of communicating and talking about the world, and story-telling is as worthy a form of God proclaiming His word to us epistles, apocalypses, or poetry.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Assyrian]

There was never any real Biblical basis for Heliocentrism.

Heliocentrism? You mean geocentrism? If there was never any real basis for geocentrism it would not have been the universal interpretation of the church for 1500 years and the unquestioned view of all the church fathers.

The Bible was never written based on astronomical observations. I remember someone had the challenge in a formal debate invitation thread stating that creationism is the new heliocentrism which I would have happily accepted but he lacked the convictions of his beliefs.

That is shernren you are saying "lacked the convictions of his beliefs" Not quite the reason shernren gave as I recall.

Heliocentrism reflected the view of most astronomers right up until the invention of the telescope. The problems Galileo ran into had to do with Aristotelian mechanics not Biblical theism. Theistic Evolutionists know this and I find it revealing that they do nothing but drag these discussions to this level.

I know creationists make excuses that geocentrism influenced interpreters before Copernicus, but you have had Christians who rejected secular science throughout church history, even questioning a round earth. But no one questioned geocentrism. Why? Because that is the simple literal meaning of the text and there is nothing in the geocentric texts to suggest they should not be taken literally.

You know, I am constantly amazed at creationists' inability to understand why the church for 1500 years read the geocentric passages and understood them describing quite literally, the sun going round the earth. Just because the prevailing cosmology was geocentrism doesn't mean doesn't mean the church father were reading these views into scripture. You need to get past your rejection of the geocentric interpretation, to look at how the passages would have appeared to someone not sharing your scientific presuppositions.

Nonsense! It's called equivocation and to make that giant leap of logic without a single evolutionist calling you on it speaks volumes for the fallacious nature of evolutionist debate.

Instead of throwing words like 'equivocation' around, perhaps you could show what my equivocation and my giant leap of logic are supposed to be?

The Virgin birth is a doctrine that has a solid Biblical foundation and remains a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Whether the sun revolves around the earth, the earth revolves around the sun or everything in the universe revolves around a statue of Mike Ditka in leatards is irrelevant to Biblical theism and the Christian faith.

Yet if you couldn't trust the scripture when it described the sun going round the earth, how could you trust it when it talks of the Virgin birth? There is no point saying the virgin birth has a solid Biblical foundation when they problem was heliocentrism undermining the very authority of the bible itself. We live centuries later when the church solved the problem, it doesn't mean it wasn't a very serious issue at the time.

By now you know why original sin is important and the only reason you are not acknowledging it in this post is because you care more about preforming for other evolutionists.

I left Original Sin behind when I left the Catholic Church, because as far as I could see it was just another tradition without any biblical support, it went out with prugatory, praying to Mary, the immaculate conception, the assumption, and papal infallibility. I was a creationist back then and for many years after. On the other hand, TEs who do accept the doctrine of Original Sin, have no problem reconciling the doctrine with evolution. So where is this supposed problem with evolution and Original Sin? You keep going on about but you can never back it up.

What other strategies do Creationists use to avoid questions?

Now he will light his ill fashioned effigy of creationists on fire, doing a strawman fire dance for the amusement of his evolutionist cohorts in the Darwinian theater of the mind.

Just hope you remembered to disable the sprinkler system.

Have a nice day
Mark

OK thanks, lets add: unsupported accusations of logical fallacies.

 

[chris4243]

Tell them that you know that the Bible is true, and that if there is worldly evidence that they think contradicts the Bible then they're interpreting said evidence wrong.

 

[shernren]

Meanwhile there's a creationist in the Creationist sub-forum who's quite blithely saying that there is a real, historical Adam ... and that half of humanity isn't even descended from him.

I'll start thinking about the strength of creationists' convictions when they step up to the plate and smite the heretics among their own ranks.

Until then, I have every right to see creationism as just so much spineless pandering to the individualistic spirit of the times.

 

[freezerman2000]

Here's one..."God did it"...and then misrepresenting how evolution works.

 

[mark kennedy]

Heliocentrism? You mean geocentrism? If there was never any real basis for geocentrism it would not have been the universal interpretation of the church for 1500 years and the unquestioned view of all the church fathers.

It was also the view of astronomers up until Copernicus proposed that the earth may well be circling the sun. The 'Church' simply reflected the views of the times they lived in and as far as anyone could tell the sun was moving while the earth was stationary. Not a shred of Biblical support for this phenonemon in nature but you insist on making this the same as the creation of Adam and the historicity of the Genesis narratives. It's absurd.

That is shernren you are saying "lacked the convictions of his beliefs" Not quite the reason shernren gave as I recall.

When he realized that someone was going to take him to task he refused the debate even though he made the challenge. The problem is that it's different arguing a statement like that when you don't have a group that can swarm your opponent when you run out of arguments.

This one is a slam dunk, all the bar room back slapping won't change that.

I know creationists make excuses that geocentrism influenced interpreters before Copernicus, but you have had Christians who rejected secular science throughout church history, even questioning a round earth. But no one questioned geocentrism. Why? Because that is the simple literal meaning of the text and there is nothing in the geocentric texts to suggest they should not be taken literally.

Nonsense, no one questioned it until the invention of the telescope or don't you know your history? Astronomers never questioned either. Galileo built only the second telescope capable of magnifying the heavens by 35X. Galileo got into trouble not because he was proposing a theory that contradicted Scripture, but because he went against the scientific status quo of his day. What happened was in Pisa where he taught he was arguing against Aristotelian mechanics. Previously scholars had proposed ways of reconciling Aristotelian mechanics with new discoveries and emerging sciences. Galileo was saying we have to set aside Aristotelian deductive reasoning altogether and produce a new inductive scientific method. When they could not refute him philosophically the attacked him through religion the way Darwinians attack creationists. As Galileo put it, 'the Bible tells us how to get to heave, not how the heavens work'. No essential doctrine was at risk only the Aristotelian synthesis.

When the status quo of his day got the worst of it they started attacking Galileo's religion. If you are going to make an argument then why don't you learn your history and the philosophical chess game that was playing out.

Your argument is circular, pedantic and devoid of substantive reason. You are simply using Darwinian cliche's to mock Biblical theism. This particular fallacy is equivocation, on old staple of Darwinian rhetoric. You would not be so bold to flaunt your fallacious diatribes if your cohorts were ever inclined to correct one of their own.

You know, I am constantly amazed at creationists' inability to understand why the church for 1500 years read the geocentric passages and understood them describing quite literally, the sun going round the earth. Just because the prevailing cosmology was geocentrism doesn't mean doesn't mean the church father were reading these views into scripture. You need to get past your rejection of the geocentric interpretation, to look at how the passages would have appeared to someone not sharing your scientific presuppositions.

You know, I am continually amazed at the audacity of evolutionists that condescend to creationists simply because they are creationists. There is no cosmology of Biblical theism, your begging the question on your hands and knees. You have failed to provide a single substantive reason I should even entertain such an unwarranted fallacious assumption.

What is more it is astonishing how much you don't know about the history and philosophy of the Scientific Revolution. Yet you pontificate about things you have failed to study or to substantiate at any length. Then you pretend to have some kind of a credible argument that Creationists fail to address when I have addressed repeatedly.

By they way, my invitation to debate the topic formally is open to you. If you have the convictions of your beliefs I will accept your invitation in the common forum. I would be delighted to gut this fallacious red herring of an argument. The issue of human lineage and the doctrinal issues related to Adam as our first parent have absolutely nothing to do with astronomy. As a matter of fact the Scriptures tell us nothing about how the heavens function. They do speak explicitly to our lineage.

Instead of throwing words like 'equivocation' around, perhaps you could show what my equivocation and my giant leap of logic are supposed to be?

• Geocentrism was the commonly held belief of the church for 1,500 years.
• Adam being our first parent is based on an identical interpretation of Scripture.
• Therefore, a literal interpretation of Genesis is the equivalent of geocentrism.

You are equivocating the two. Genesis speaks in the historical narratives of Genesis and expounds on our lineage in the New Testament. Geocentrism is unknown in Scripture because mechanistic descriptions of astronomical movements are never described, much less tied to essential doctrine. The creation of Adam and the lineal descent of man is.

That is an easily unraveled fallacious equivocation.

Yet if you couldn't trust the scripture when it described the sun going round the earth, how could you trust it when it talks of the Virgin birth? There is no point saying the virgin birth has a solid Biblical foundation when they problem was heliocentrism undermining the very authority of the bible itself. We live centuries later when the church solved the problem, it doesn't mean it wasn't a very serious issue at the time.

The Scriptures are clear that Jesus was born of a virgin in the Gospel accounts. There are only a couple of passages that even mention the course of the sun and not a single quote is tied to anything remotely doctrinal. The church, like most astronomers thought the sun revolved around the earth, so what?

I left Original Sin behind when I left the Catholic Church, because as far as I could see it was just another tradition without any biblical support, it went out with prugatory, praying to Mary, the immaculate conception, the assumption, and papal infallibility. I was a creationist back then and for many years after. On the other hand, TEs who do accept the doctrine of Original Sin, have no problem reconciling the doctrine with evolution. So where is this supposed problem with evolution and Original Sin? You keep going on about but you can never back it up.

I have repeatedly shown you from the Scriptures the explicit doctrinal issues and expositional support, you simply ignore it. There is ample Scriptural support for original sin from the Old Testament, New Testament and the doctrine and teaching of the Church for 2,000 years. I don't hold to RCC extra-biblical doctrines either, original sin is a Pauline doctrine, not a Catholic one. More equivocation.

OK thanks, lets add: unsupported accusations of logical fallacies.

Unsupported? You are accusing Creationists of dodging the scientific questions. Here is your chance to finally corner one. Put you proposal in the invitation thread and we can cover the topic in three to six rounds, no problem.

I have a ton of source material I would be delighted to bring to the discussion. My guess is all you have is the same ill-founded statement you chant link a mantra without a single substantive source supporting it.

Put up or shut up, that's my challenge. Take it up and I will at least respect your intellectual integrity for your willingness to defend your statement. Otherwise I will simply dismiss the thesis of this thread of fallacious Darwinian rhetoric displayed for the entertainment and amusement of your audience in this soliloquy, falsely called scientific.

Your choice, choose carefully....both options have their price.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

It was also the view of astronomers up until Copernicus proposed that the earth may well be circling the sun. The 'Church' simply reflected the views of the times they lived in and as far as anyone could tell the sun was moving while the earth was stationary. Not a shred of Biblical support for this phenonemon in nature but you insist on making this the same as the creation of Adam and the historicity of the Genesis narratives. It's absurd.

Joshua 10:12 At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
It is pretty clear from the text whether it was the sun or the earth that was moving and which Joshua commanded to stop. Interestingly unlike Genesis which is composed of different narratives, this description of the sun moving is in the middle of the historical narrative. The plain meaning of the text is that the sun was actually moving across the sky, that it was the sun that stopped when Joshua commanded it, and that it hurried along to the place it sets after the miracle.

Eccles 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns.
7 All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.
Wisdom literature here, but in this passage Solomon is describing the cycles of nature. Frequently quoted by creationists for Solomon's insight into the hydrological cycle, Solomon also describe the sun's movement hurrying to get to the place it rises after it goes down. Why shouldn't anybody reading this take it literally and think it describes a geocentric cosmos with the sun moving around the earth?

When he realized that someone was going to take him to task he refused the debate even though he made the challenge. The problem is that it's different arguing a statement like that when you don't have a group that can swarm your opponent when you run out of arguments.

This one is a slam dunk, all the bar room back slapping won't change that.

For a slam dunk you would have to actually win the argument, not invent your own explanations why shernren decided against the debate.

Nonsense, no one questioned it until the invention of the telescope or don't you know your history? Astronomers never questioned either. Galileo built only the second telescope capable of magnifying the heavens by 35X. Galileo got into trouble not because he was proposing a theory that contradicted Scripture, but because he went against the scientific status quo of his day. What happened was in Pisa where he taught he was arguing against Aristotelian mechanics. Previously scholars had proposed ways of reconciling Aristotelian mechanics with new discoveries and emerging sciences. Galileo was saying we have to set aside Aristotelian deductive reasoning altogether and produce a new inductive scientific method. When they could not refute him philosophically the attacked him through religion the way Darwinians attack creationists. As Galileo put it, 'the Bible tells us how to get to heave, not how the heavens work'. No essential doctrine was at risk only the Aristotelian synthesis.

When the status quo of his day got the worst of it they started attacking Galileo's religion. If you are going to make an argument then why don't you learn your history and the philosophical chess game that was playing out.

Your argument is circular, pedantic and devoid of substantive reason. You are simply using Darwinian cliche's to mock Biblical theism. This particular fallacy is equivocation, on old staple of Darwinian rhetoric. You would not be so bold to flaunt your fallacious diatribes if your cohorts were ever inclined to correct one of their own.

Aristarchus propose heliocentrism eighteen centuries before Copernicus, but we aren't talking about astronomers here, we are talking about scripture scholars who studied these passages for one and a half millennia when no one questioned the literal meaning of the texts. It is not as if people weren't willing to question the science of the day either, embarrassingly so. But no one questioned the plain meaning of the geocentric texts. Why? Because it is the plain straightforward meaning of the texts is that it is the sun that moves across the sky.

You know, I am continually amazed at the audacity of evolutionists that condescend to creationists simply because they are creationists. There is no cosmology of Biblical theism, your begging the question on your hands and knees. You have failed to provide a single substantive reason I should even entertain such an unwarranted fallacious assumption.

What is more it is astonishing how much you don't know about the history and philosophy of the Scientific Revolution. Yet you pontificate about things you have failed to study or to substantiate at any length. Then you pretend to have some kind of a credible argument that Creationists fail to address when I have addressed repeatedly.

If I didn't have a credible argument, why couldn't you address what I said?

By they way, my invitation to debate the topic formally is open to you. If you have the convictions of your beliefs I will accept your invitation in the common forum.

Sorry Mark I have seen you debate, and it is pretty ugly. I prefer to deal with abuse, evasion and non sequitors out here on the open forum. Anything you want to say you can say out here where I can deal with it in my own time, length and in as many posts as are needed.

I would be delighted to gut this fallacious red herring of an argument. The issue of human lineage and the doctrinal issues related to Adam as our first parent have absolutely nothing to do with astronomy.

The main connection is how we deal with scientific developments that overturn traditional literal interpretations. You do not want to follow the same wise approach of the church when it changed its interpretation of the geocentric passages, forgetting the damage done to the church when it stood against science and scientists like Galileo.

But the issue raises other questions as we have seen. It calls into question the ability of Creationists to distinguish their interpretation of scripture from their own preconceptions of what they think it should say, their ability to compare and judge different interpretations of a passage, when they obviously haven't a clue how for a millennium and a half the church could read passages like Joshua and Ecclesiastes and think they literally described a geocentric cosmos.

As a matter of fact the Scriptures tell us nothing about how the heavens function.

No nothing about function, however the bible does talk about the sun and the moon and describes their movements, and the descriptions are geocentric, it is the sun that moves across the sky during the day and hurries to get back to the place it rises at night.

They do speak explicitly to our lineage.

None that contradicts mankind evolving unless you take the very common biblical description of God the potter making man from clay literally. I don't know where you get 'our lineage' from either. There is nothing in scripture that says the entire human race is descended from Adam, nor is there anything in scripture that links biological descent from Adam with Original Sin, even in the passage you thinks speak about Original Sin.

• Geocentrism was the commonly held belief of the church for 1,500 years.
• Adam being our first parent is based on an identical interpretation of Scripture.
• Therefore, a literal interpretation of Genesis is the equivalent of geocentrism.

You are equivocating the two. Genesis speaks in the historical narratives of Genesis and expounds on our lineage in the New Testament. Geocentrism is unknown in Scripture because mechanistic descriptions of astronomical movements are never described, much less tied to essential doctrine. The creation of Adam and the lineal descent of man is.

That is an easily unraveled fallacious equivocation.

They are both the inspired word of God.

They are both passages whose literal interpretation has been contradicted by science.

Joshua is much more clearly part of a historical narrative than the creation accounts and while Ecclesiastes is not a historical narrative, the passage is presented as a straightforward description of natural processes repeat themselves.

The differences between Genesis and the geocentric passages only serve to reinforce the fact we should treat Genesis the same way previous generations dealt with the geocentric passages when the literal interpretation was contradicted by science. The literal meaning of the Genesis was questioned by Jewish and Christian scholars from the text itself long before geology and biology showed us the interpretation was mistaken, while the literal meaning of the geocentric passages was unchallenged before Copernicus. All the more reason to deal with evolution the way the church dealt with heliocentrism.

Vossler claimed that the important difference was 'spiritual significance' that Genesis had, while the geocentric passages supposedly don't. But that is is simply making excuses. It is all the inspired word of God. 2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. You have to ignore how heliocentrism shook people's confidence in the inspiration of scripture, and you also have to ignore how the doctrines you suppose are based on a literal interpretation of Genesis are still held quite happily by believers who accept the age of the earth and evolution.

This is not equivocation, it is your of argument of 'essential doctrine' that is special pleading. If you think a doctrine is based on a passage of scripture you misunderstand, then either it is a genuine doctrine that stands without the passage you read the doctrine into, or the doctrine is as mistaken as you misinterpretation. Neither are a basis to treat creationism and differently from geocentrism.

Yet if you couldn't trust the scripture when it described the sun going round the earth, how could you trust it when it talks of the Virgin birth? There is no point saying the virgin birth has a solid Biblical foundation when they problem was heliocentrism undermining the very authority of the bible itself. We live centuries later when the church solved the problem, it doesn't mean it wasn't a very serious issue at the time.

The Scriptures are clear that Jesus was born of a virgin in the Gospel accounts. There are only a couple of passages that even mention the course of the sun and not a single quote is tied to anything remotely doctrinal. The church, like most astronomers thought the sun revolved around the earth, so what?

You are simply repeating your point without any attempt to address what I said.

What is the point in repeating how clearly scripture talks about the virgin birth, when I have shown you the issue how heliocentrism threatened to undermine the very reliability of the world of God? If scripture is unreliable or you cannot trust the plain meaning of the text, it doesn't matter how clearly you think it speaks about the virgin birth, they thought it spoke clearly about geocentrism too. The church dealt with that when they reinterpreted how God spoke in the geocentric passages, but it was a much more relevant issue faced by the church than your claims about Original Sin which TE happily hold while accepting common ancestry.

I have repeatedly shown you from the Scriptures the explicit doctrinal issues and expositional support, you simply ignore it. There is ample Scriptural support for original sin from the Old Testament, New Testament and the doctrine and teaching of the Church for 2,000 years. I don't hold to RCC extra-biblical doctrines either, original sin is a Pauline doctrine, not a Catholic one.

If only you could show Original Sin from scripture and not just claim you have done so.

More equivocation.

No it isn't. I told you the reason I left Original Sin behind, and how I dropped the doctrine long before I became a TE. I left it behind for the same reasons I left behind purgatory and the marian doctrines, because I did not see them anywhere in scripture. It doesn't matter if you think Original Sin is supportable from scripture, while the other doctrines aren't, these were still my reasons, whether you think you can come up with a scriptural argument or not. Of course I happily acknowledge that fellow TEs do accept Original Sin, and agree with them that the subject has nothing to do with evolution or common ancestry.

OK thanks, lets add: unsupported accusations of logical fallacies.

Unsupported? You are accusing Creationists of dodging the scientific questions.

No I am accusing them of unsupported accusation of logical fallacies. Like when you threw out 'equivocation' in your previous post without backing the claim up, or your unsupported claims of circular argument here.

Here is your chance to finally corner one. Put you proposal in the invitation thread and we can cover the topic in three to six rounds, no problem.

I have a ton of source material I would be delighted to bring to the discussion. My guess is all you have is the same ill-founded statement you chant link a mantra without a single substantive source supporting it.

Put up or shut up, that's my challenge. Take it up and I will at least respect your intellectual integrity for your willingness to defend your statement. Otherwise I will simply dismiss the thesis of this thread of fallacious Darwinian rhetoric displayed for the entertainment and amusement of your audience in this soliloquy, falsely called scientific.

Your choice, choose carefully....both options have their price.

Have a nice day
Mark

What? If I decline your gracious invitation to a debate you will crow about it for ever after and pretend you have a 'slam dunk'?
You can try to back up your creationism out here just as easily as in a formal debate. Or are you just looking for an excuse to ignore my posts?

 

[PROPHECYKID]

What are the Creationist strategies to avoid dealing with difficult issues questions? For example avoiding all discussion of Heliocentrism and the church changing its interpretation of scripture because of science, by claiming it is "of no spiritual significance".



Of course you have to ignore the fact that so many TEs accept a literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin raising the question 'what spiritual significance?' You also have to ignore the deep spiritual implications feared by people at the time, where heliocentrism challenged the trustworthiness of scripture itself and if you could not rely on the plain meaning of the Joshua's long day, how could you trust it when it speak of the Virgin Birth? Then there is the problem that is you see some spiritual significance in a misinterpretation of a passage of scripture, then your spiritual significance is a mistaken too. But since the 'spiritual significance' claim means you do not have to deal with problem like that, these problems can be avoided too.

Over in Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists Mallon suggested 'Avoiding Questions from Evolutionists' might have been a better title for the thread. So I am nicking the title. Thanks Mallon

What other strategies do Creationists use to avoid questions?

Why avoid questions? I think we should try to get the resources to answer those questions rather than avoiding. If you don't know something, you don't know but you can always find out. There is allot of scientific evidence which proves creation.

 

[gluadys]

It was also the view of astronomers up until Copernicus proposed that the earth may well be circling the sun. The 'Church' simply reflected the views of the times they lived in and as far as anyone could tell the sun was moving while the earth was stationary. Not a shred of Biblical support for this phenonemon in nature but you insist on making this the same as the creation of Adam and the historicity of the Genesis narratives. It's absurd.

But there is biblical support. For it wasn't just the Church that 'simply reflected the views of the times they lived in'; it was also the biblical writers for a millennium or more before the Church existed. For ancient people as well as medieval scholars, 'as far as anyone could tell the sun was moving while the earth was stationary'. And that is the way they wrote it.

The irony comes from the principle of lifting up the literal interpretation of scripture as the norm---and that is a distinctively modern hermeneutical principle.

This modern principle cannot be applied consistently unless one adopts the same position vis-a-vis the geocentric assumptions of scripture that pre-Copernicans did. No one then challenged the literal meaning of those scriptural passages because 'as far as anyone could tell the sun was moving while the earth was stationary'. It only became a matter of controversy when a theory (from Copernicus) and evidence to support it (from Galileo's observations with a telescope) told us the facts were different from the traditional assumptions.

But if modern creationists took the same stance vis-a-vis these scriptures as they do with Genesis1-2 (or the Flood story) they would be telling us that we must not let scientific theories or observations change the clear testimony of scripture literally understood.

Instead (except for real geocentrists) they tie themselves in knots explaining why it is not necessary to interpret these verses literally.

But then they reverse course when it comes to Adam or the six days of Genesis 1. Now we can say the same of these passages as of the geocentrist assumptions of the biblical writers. They reflect the views of the times they lived in. And as far as anyone could tell the world was literally made in six days and Adam was the first human being and was literally made from dirt like a piece of pottery. Ancient interpreters had just as much reason to assume these were literal, historical, scientific truths as that the earth stands still and the sun moves around it. Yet, time and again we find they didn't interpret the creation stories literally, even though they had no "scientific" reason not to.

So, ironically, the modern exaltation of literal, concordist interpretation sets the modern creationist at odds with pre-Copernican, pre-Darwinian interpreters of scripture in both cases. What the ancients did interpret literally, the modern creationist insists is not to be interpreted literally and never should have been. What the ancients felt free to interpret non-literally the modern creationist insists must be interpreted literally and only literally, no matter how much scientific evidence is found to reject a literal meaning.

The use of scientific observation to modify the interpretation of the geocentric passages is allowable, even though the literal interpretation was never in question beforehand. But the use of scientific observation to modify the interpretation of the creation stories is not allowable, even though non-literal interpretations were common in Jewish and Christian traditions from ancient times.

How much simpler to acknowledge that in both cases biblical writers and interpreters were reflecting the views of the times they lived in, and we are free to claim the truths of their teaching on spiritual matters and salvation history even as the scientific view changes our understanding of nature and natural history.

As we have seen here time and again, accepting an old earth and evolution, including human evolution, does not really alter anyone's commitment to orthodox Christian beliefs. (In fact, I see far more heterodoxy among creationists than among theistic evolutionists.) So various attempts to claim it does just don't hold water.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is pretty clear from the text whether it was the sun or the earth that was moving and which Joshua commanded to stop. Interestingly unlike Genesis which is composed of different narratives, this description of the sun moving is in the middle of the historical narrative. The plain meaning of the text is that the sun was actually moving across the sky, that it was the sun that stopped when Joshua commanded it, and that it hurried along to the place it sets after the miracle.

All the narrative is really telling us is that the battle was over before sun set. This may well have been a miracle but there are really not enough details for me to say God secured the victory before sunset or prolonged the day. I have no problem with God stopping the celestial movement, even if that's what is being described here there is no basis for geocentrism as a Biblical doctrine.

Wisdom literature here, but in this passage Solomon is describing the cycles of nature. Frequently quoted by creationists for Solomon's insight into the hydrological cycle, Solomon also describe the sun's movement hurrying to get to the place it rises after it goes down. Why shouldn't anybody reading this take it literally and think it describes a geocentric cosmos with the sun moving around the earth?

Of course it's going to look like the celestial objects are rotating around the earth the description is relative. Solomon is talking about times, season and cycles so what? He is certainly not making astronomical observations, that's just plain silly.

For a slam dunk you would have to actually win the argument, not invent your own explanations why shernren decided against the debate.

He didn't actually engage in the debate for the same reason you won't, your premise in indefensible. When you get away from the Darwinian rhetoric and forced to deal with Biblical expositions, historical trends and systematic philosophy you have nothing. This fallacious rhetorical ploy will not stand up to close scrutiny and quoting a couple of verse out of context concedes this point by default.

You won't debate the issue formally because you have nothing substantive to argue.

Aristarchus propose heliocentrism eighteen centuries before Copernicus, but we aren't talking about astronomers here, we are talking about scripture scholars who studied these passages for one and a half millennia when no one questioned the literal meaning of the texts. It is not as if people weren't willing to question the science of the day either, embarrassingly so. But no one questioned the plain meaning of the geocentric texts. Why? Because it is the plain straightforward meaning of the texts is that it is the sun that moves across the sky.

That was also the view of most astronomers, Aristarchus being one of the few who actually entertained alternatives. Like I have said repeatedly the heliocentric model could not be established until the invention of the telescope bringing the heavens into a clearer view. Galileo observed that moons were revolving around Jupiter which gave strong support for the model.

There are other issues involved but since you are not going to bother to move beyond this pedantic rhetoric the real issues will never be addressed. That's perfectly fine with you, all you have to do is chant your original statement like a mantra and your applauded by you intended audience.

If I didn't have a credible argument, why couldn't you address what I said?

I did, you simply ignored it. You make two random quotes and rambling commentaries on two texts taken out of context. That was the same tactic used against Galileo, it didn't work then and it doesn't work here.

Sorry Mark I have seen you debate, and it is pretty ugly. I prefer to deal with abuse, evasion and non sequitors out here on the open forum. Anything you want to say you can say out here where I can deal with it in my own time, length and in as many posts as are needed.

You mean you never have to make an argument, just talk in circles. The problem is that you have nothing but pithy cliche's, virtually no understanding of the philosophical and historical issues involved. You lack anything in the way of source material or substantive arguments.

Reject the invitation, I have no problem with that. It just tells me that you are unable to defend this obnoxious rhetorical spin formally because all you have is short pedantic quips supporting your view.

The main connection is how we deal with scientific developments that overturn traditional literal interpretations. You do not want to follow the same wise approach of the church when it changed its interpretation of the geocentric passages, forgetting the damage done to the church when it stood against science and scientists like Galileo.

Nonsense. The main connection is that when the scientific issues were raised early in the 17th century Galileo's critics resorted to theological import. This is not different. You are attacking Biblical literalism by comparing two unrelated events. The passages in Joshua and Ecclessiasties are not tied to esssential doctrine and certainly not exponded upon in the New Testament.

It's called equivocation and your fallacious rhetoric does not speak well of your worldview.

But the issue raises other questions as we have seen. It calls into question the ability of Creationists to distinguish their interpretation of scripture from their own preconceptions of what they think it should say, their ability to compare and judge different interpretations of a passage, when they obviously haven't a clue how for a millennium and a half the church could read passages like Joshua and Ecclesiastes and think they literally described a geocentric cosmos.

You say that after ignoring the detailed explanation I gave you with regards to this issue during the Scientific Revolution. Because you have failed to substantiate you inflammatory remarks you are simply surrendering you premise. I have no problem revisiting my interpretation of Scripture and have on many occasions. I even dabbled with the idea of chosing a TE perspective on the whole thing but it was the shallow treatment of the Scriptures and sciences that caused me to reject it.

Again and again I have seen the Scriptures and the scientific evidence trampled under foot. I am not a slave to my preconceptions, I will happily abandon a literal interpretation when such a view is warranted. You have failed to make a substantive defense of you opening statement and you do well to keep it here where you don't have to actually defend it. Your right about one thing, it would be ugly the way I would rip it to shreds.

No nothing about function, however the bible does talk about the sun and the moon and describes their movements, and the descriptions are geocentric, it is the sun that moves across the sky during the day and hurries to get back to the place it rises at night.

Who did the sun marry when it came from it's pavilion? There is no doctrinal issue tied to David's illustration from the sun. David is clearly describing the antecedent glory of God being revealed in the things that were made. You would actually have to learn something about sound Biblical expositions in order to realize that.

None that contradicts mankind evolving unless you take the very common biblical description of God the potter making man from clay literally. I don't know where you get 'our lineage' from either. There is nothing in scripture that says the entire human race is descended from Adam, nor is there anything in scripture that links biological descent from Adam with Original Sin, even in the passage you thinks speak about Original Sin.

That is simply not true. There are two genealogies, the historical narrative of Genesis and confirmation in the New Testament. Adam being our first parent is clearly the view of Jesus, Paul and Luke so don't pretend you are unaware of this fact because I have refuted these unfounded rationalizations many times before.

They are both the inspired word of God.

Which is a concept that is alien to your worldview.

They are both passages whose literal interpretation has been contradicted by science.

The passage in Joshua while being a miracle is not tied to the need for justification by Paul. The fact that scientists reject the historicity of the text is indicative of prevailing unbelief. Show me the secular scholars that are affirming the historicity of the New Testament with regards to miracles and manifestations of God and perhaps you will have a point. Otherwise your just belaboring a fallacious rhetorical statement.

Joshua is much more clearly part of a historical narrative than the creation accounts and while Ecclesiastes is not a historical narrative, the passage is presented as a straightforward description of natural processes repeat themselves.

Genesis is an historical narrative as well as Joshua, one is not more clearly historical then the other. The Genesis account are far more relevent to New Testament theology though while the miracle in Joshua is boiled down to a couple of isolated texts. As far as Ecclesiastes is a description of natural processes...so what?

The differences between Genesis and the geocentric passages only serve to reinforce the fact we should treat Genesis the same way previous generations dealt with the geocentric passages when the literal interpretation was contradicted by science. The literal meaning of the Genesis was questioned by Jewish and Christian scholars from the text itself long before geology and biology showed us the interpretation was mistaken, while the literal meaning of the geocentric passages was unchallenged before Copernicus. All the more reason to deal with evolution the way the church dealt with heliocentrism.

The length of days in Genesis and other literary features can and are questioned historically and presently. The fact that Adam is the first parent of humanity and sin entered the human condition through 'one man's disobedience' is not. I have explored the biological evidence and it contradicts nothing in Scripture. It is the a priori assumption of universal common descent and the preference of natural law over miraculous interpolation, as Darwin called it, that is at issue.

Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'. The creation of Adam would have been a 'miraculous interposition' but Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Peter 3:15.16)​

Continued next post...

 

[mark kennedy]

This is science:

This is supposition

Vossler claimed that the important difference was 'spiritual significance' that Genesis had, while the geocentric passages supposedly don't. But that is is simply making excuses.

Nonsense, it's making a crucial distinction.

It is all the inspired word of God.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. (2Tim 3:16)​

You have to ignore how heliocentrism shook people's confidence in the inspiration of scripture, and you also have to ignore how the doctrines you suppose are based on a literal interpretation of Genesis are still held quite happily by believers who accept the age of the earth and evolution.

Astronomical observations that shake peoples view of the inspiration of Scripture indicate a gross misunderstanding of both. The Scriptures never make a definitive statement regrading the movements of the planetary systems. They do speak clearly and explicitly with regards to human lineage.

This is not equivocation, it is your of argument of 'essential doctrine' that is special pleading. If you think a doctrine is based on a passage of scripture you misunderstand, then either it is a genuine doctrine that stands without the passage you read the doctrine into, or the doctrine is as mistaken as you misinterpretation. Neither are a basis to treat creationism and differently from geocentrism.

The sun will fall from the sky before I resort to some 'special pleading' in a debate with you. It is equivocation and a Darwinian coctail of superficial fallacious rhetoric that is at the heart of your argument. You have failed to support your pedantic assertions and all Biblical, scientific and philsophical reasonings with you are futile.

The Bible contradicts nothing in science, I'm convinced that evolution is a witches brew of fact and fantasy. The scientific findings are being organized around philosophical naturalism based on naturalistic assumptions, not empirical evidence. The Bible tells our true history, what is being passed off as evolution, at least on here, is a myth.

You are simply repeating your point without any attempt to address what I said.

Funny you should make a comment like that when I addressed what you said in detail only to have you ignore the substance of the post:

no one questioned it until the invention of the telescope or don't you know your history? Astronomers never questioned either. Galileo built only the second telescope capable of magnifying the heavens by 35X. Galileo got into trouble not because he was proposing a theory that contradicted Scripture, but because he went against the scientific status quo of his day. What happened was in Pisa where he taught he was arguing against Aristotelian mechanics. Previously scholars had proposed ways of reconciling Aristotelian mechanics with new discoveries and emerging sciences. Galileo was saying we have to set aside Aristotelian deductive reasoning altogether and produce a new inductive scientific method. When they could not refute him philosophically the attacked him through religion the way Darwinians attack creationists. As Galileo put it, 'the Bible tells us how to get to heave, not how the heavens work'. No essential doctrine was at risk only the Aristotelian synthesis.

When the status quo of his day got the worst of it they started attacking Galileo's religion. If you are going to make an argument then why don't you learn your history and the philosophical chess game that was playing out.

You offered notihing substantive as a response.

What is the point in repeating how clearly scripture talks about the virgin birth, when I have shown you the issue how heliocentrism threatened to undermine the very reliability of the world of God? If scripture is unreliable or you cannot trust the plain meaning of the text, it doesn't matter how clearly you think it speaks about the virgin birth, they thought it spoke clearly about geocentrism too. The church dealt with that when they reinterpreted how God spoke in the geocentric passages, but it was a much more relevant issue faced by the church than your claims about Original Sin which TE happily hold while accepting common ancestry.

Heliocentrism never undermined confidence in the Scriptures. It threatened the Aristotlean synthesis otherwise known as Scholasticism. That was the issue involved and Galileo wanted to scrap Aristotlean mechanics. This did not go over well with his contemporaries who had theologians convince Pope Urbane that Galileo was a dangerous heretic. That is one of the reasons that Protestants championed the ideal of keeping politics and science separate as well as disconnecting science and religion (or metaphysics as some would describe it)

You are aware of none of this, that speaks volumns for the intellectual integrity of the evolutionists posting here.

If only you could show Original Sin from scripture and not just claim you have done so.

It's been done repeatedly and you play the same circular semantics all avid Darwinian posters do. Ask the question, ignore the answer, ask the question, pretend it has not been answered, wash, rinse, repeat.

No it isn't. I told you the reason I left Original Sin behind, and how I dropped the doctrine long before I became a TE. I left it behind for the same reasons I left behind purgatory and the marian doctrines, because I did not see them anywhere in scripture. It doesn't matter if you think Original Sin is supportable from scripture, while the other doctrines aren't, these were still my reasons, whether you think you can come up with a scriptural argument or not. Of course I happily acknowledge that fellow TEs do accept Original Sin, and agree with them that the subject has nothing to do with evolution or common ancestry.

One major distinction, original sin is a Pauline doctrine, the others are extra-biblical. I'm sorry you drifted from your faith but it was not because the historicity of the Scriptures are suspect.

No I am accusing them of unsupported accusation of logical fallacies. Like when you threw out 'equivocation' in your previous post without backing the claim up, or your unsupported claims of circular argument here

.

If you had a substantive argument I am more then willing to address it. What you have is an equivocation of a foundational historical narrative confirmed and exponded in the New Testament you are trying to equivocate with an isolated text. It's fallacious and repeating the original error and mimicking my critical look at your shallow arguments are deeply flawed.

What? If I decline your gracious invitation to a debate you will crow about it for ever after and pretend you have a 'slam dunk'?
You can try to back up your creationism out here just as easily as in a formal debate. Or are you just looking for an excuse to ignore my posts?

If you had something other then a few pedantic one liners you would have happily taken me up on my challenge. You claim that creationists are avoiding hard questions but when pressed on your central point you fold under the weight of your fallacious arguments.

Had you bothered to research the issues you would have realized that lineage and cosmological models are separate issues. As it stands you have successfully abandoned the premise of your thread leaving it defenseless.

I to have abandoned much of RCC doctrine and dogma but never the core Christian doctrines they have long stood on. I debated justification by faith with a Catholic college student and agreed with much of RCC theology in the thread. Not accepting extra-biblical doctrines of the RCC is no excuse for your shallow treatment of the subject matter. You pretend that I am not making detailed and sound arguments for original sin and regarding the controversy surrounding the advent of heliocentrism.

This is simply not true and you know it. The problem is that you have exausted your argument and either repeated points that are easily refuted or abandoned them entirely.

Thanks for the exchange, God help you Assyrian

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

This is science:

This is supposition

It was supposition (a hypothesis) when Darwin drew it. But with thousands of observations made over 150 years since, it is a very-well established theory with a great deal of supporting evidence. What that hypothesis predicts has been confirmed as a reality of nature many times over.

Astronomical observations that shake peoples view of the inspiration of Scripture indicate a gross misunderstanding of both.

And equally geological/paleontological observations that shake peoples view of the inspiration of Scripture indicate a gross misunderstanding of both. And biological (e.g. morphological, genetic, geographical, developmental) observations that shake peoples view of the inspiration of Scripture indicate a gross misunderstanding of both.

 

[Assyrian]

All the narrative is really telling us is that the battle was over before sun set. This may well have been a miracle but there are really not enough details for me to say God secured the victory before sunset or prolonged the day. I have no problem with God stopping the celestial movement, even if that's what is being described here there is no basis for geocentrism as a Biblical doctrine.

The text is certainly telling us the battle was over before sun set, but that is not all the text says. Do you have any reason for ignoring what it tells us about the movement of the sun, other than the fact it contradicts your knowledge of science? And was there any reason in the text for scripture scholars before Copernicus to ignore all it says about Joshua commanding the the sun to stop, the sun stopping at his command, and hurrying along after the miracle? Why shouldn't they have taken that literally?

You accuse these scripture scholars of being influenced by the geocentric science of the day, yet you are the one who ignores what the text says based on science. All they had to do was take the text literally.

Of course it's going to look like the celestial objects are rotating around the earth the description is relative. Solomon is talking about times, season and cycles so what? He is certainly not making astronomical observations, that's just plain silly.

By 'astronomical observations' do you mean making details measurements from a ziggurat, or looking at the sun and moon and describing what he understands to be going on? Because not only did it look like the celestial objects are rotating around the earth, that is how he described their motion. You say the description is relative, but there is nothing in the text to suggest a relative description rather than a literal description of what is actually happening. Instead of ignoring what the text say the way you did with the Joshua miracle, here you are adding to the text, adding in the concept of relative motion when there isn't a hint of it in the text. Again the only reason I can think for you ignoring the plain meaning of the text is your scientific knowledge the earth goes round the sun, and there is no reason for pre-Copernican scripture scholars not to take the text at face value and think it says the sun really does go round the earth.

He didn't actually engage in the debate for the same reason you won't, your premise in indefensible.

If my premise is indefensible how come I am doing a pretty good job defending it out here on the open forum?

When you get away from the Darwinian rhetoric and forced to deal with Biblical expositions, historical trends and systematic philosophy you have nothing. This fallacious rhetorical ploy will not stand up to close scrutiny and quoting a couple of verse out of context concedes this point by default.

You won't debate the issue formally because you have nothing substantive to argue.

I have told you my reasons, you can make up you own reasons for me if you like, but they won't be any more than wishful thinking and ad homs. This is a discussion forum. There is no reason why we cannot discuss it here. Now the forum has the facility for formal debates if both parties agree, but it is an option not a requirement.

Again there is no reason you cannot subject my supposed fallacious rhetorical ploys and out of context quotes to close scrutiny out here. You haven't done very well so far even though we are into double and triple posts already. I do have the advantage out here in the open forum that I can follow up your evasions and unsubstantiated claims over as many post as it takes. Though looking over some previous discussions, I have noticed you tend to drop the subject after one attempt at a reply.

That was also the view of most astronomers, Aristarchus being one of the few who actually entertained alternatives. Like I have said repeatedly the heliocentric model could not be established until the invention of the telescope bringing the heavens into a clearer view. Galileo observed that moons were revolving around Jupiter which gave strong support for the model.

There are other issues involved but since you are not going to bother to move beyond this pedantic rhetoric the real issues will never be addressed. That's perfectly fine with you, all you have to do is chant your original statement like a mantra and your applauded by you intended audience.

Pedantic rhetoric I have no problem with the fact geocentrism was the view of vast majority of astronomers though people were aware of Aristarchus's heliocentrism too. The problem is you are ignoring the bigger issues, that it isn't astronomers we are talking about, but scripture scholars studying these passages of scripture. Your argument is a post hoc ergo propter hoc, that because they lived in a world where the astronomy was geocentric, they must have read their geocentrism into these passages. But you have failed to demonstate that this is the case. If you are right and the passages say nothing about actual astronomy, why didn't they read the passages and realised that themselves?

Assyrian: You know, I am constantly amazed at creationists' inability to understand why the church for 1500 years read the geocentric passages and understood them describing quite literally, the sun going round the earth. Just because the prevailing cosmology was geocentrism doesn't mean doesn't mean the church father were reading these views into scripture. You need to get past your rejection of the geocentric interpretation, to look at how the passages would have appeared to someone not sharing your scientific presuppositions.

Mark: You know, I am continually amazed at the audacity of evolutionists that condescend to creationists simply because they are creationists. There is no cosmology of Biblical theism, your begging the question on your hands and knees. You have failed to provide a single substantive reason I should even entertain such an unwarranted fallacious assumption.
What is more it is astonishing how much you don't know about the history and philosophy of the Scientific Revolution. Yet you pontificate about things you have failed to study or to substantiate at any length. Then you pretend to have some kind of a credible argument that Creationists fail to address when I have addressed repeatedly.

Assyrian: If I didn't have a credible argument, why couldn't you address what I said?

I did, you simply ignored it. You make two random quotes and rambling commentaries on two texts taken out of context. That was the same tactic used against Galileo, it didn't work then and it doesn't work here.

Where have you addressed my point? Where have you shown any insight into how the pre-Copernican scripture scholars interpreted the passage? You have your interpretation of the passages that ignores the literal description of the movement of the sun and moon, and you claim that they were reading their geocentrism into the passages, but there is no hint of any insight into how the passages were understood by them.

You mean you never have to make an argument, just talk in circles. The problem is that you have nothing but pithy cliche's, virtually no understanding of the philosophical and historical issues involved. You lack anything in the way of source material or substantive arguments.

Reject the invitation, I have no problem with that. It just tells me that you are unable to defend this obnoxious rhetorical spin formally because all you have is short pedantic quips supporting your view.

I am clearly able to defend my position because you do so badly these discussions. It is certainly easier to track down your evasions and rhetoric if I am not limited by post length and number. You duck and dive a lot, throwing out unsupported allegations, so I suppose the strict limits of post length and number of a formal debate suit your style of rhetoric, but if you have anything of substance to say you can say it out on the open forum.

Nonsense. The main connection is

Doesn't matter what you think the main connection is, the fact is, there are connections between the church's handling of science and geocentrism and the challenge of science and creationism. The fact there are connections means there is no basis for your claim of 'equivocation'.

...that when the scientific issues were raised early in the 17th century Galileo's critics resorted to theological import. This is not different.
You are attacking Biblical literalism by comparing two unrelated events. The passages in Joshua and Ecclessiasties are not tied to esssential doctrine and certainly not exponded upon in the New Testament.

So the Catholic church used the theological import of heliocentrism to attack Galileo, and use the supposed theological import of evolution to attack TEs. Thanks for agreeing.

It's called equivocation and your fallacious rhetoric does not speak well of your worldview.

You need to show it is equivocation first. Shouldn't we learn from mistakes made in the past interpreting scripture? Or is the only lesson we learn from the deeper understanding of how God spoke to us in those passages only tell us how to interpret those exact passages? There are very close parallels between the challenges presented by heliocentrism and evolution. Of course they deal with different passages in scripture and different sciences, but they are both science challenging tradition interpretation. Calling it equivocation is simply ignoring the fact the church faced this challenge before. Interpreting the geocentric passages to fit heliocentrism while making up excuses to insist we must not interpret Genesis is special pleading, especially when the excuses you make are so similar to how Christians felt about the challenge of heliocentrism.

But the issue raises other questions as we have seen. It calls into question the ability of Creationists to distinguish their interpretation of scripture from their own preconceptions of what they think it should say, their ability to compare and judge different interpretations of a passage, when they obviously haven't a clue how for a millennium and a half the church could read passages like Joshua and Ecclesiastes and think they literally described a geocentric cosmos.

You say that after ignoring the detailed explanation I gave you with regards to this issue during the Scientific Revolution. Because you have failed to substantiate you inflammatory remarks you are simply surrendering you premise. I have no problem revisiting my interpretation of Scripture and have on many occasions. I even dabbled with the idea of chosing a TE perspective on the whole thing but it was the shallow treatment of the Scriptures and sciences that caused me to reject it.

Again and again I have seen the Scriptures and the scientific evidence trampled under foot. I am not a slave to my preconceptions, I will happily abandon a literal interpretation when such a view is warranted. You have failed to make a substantive defense of you opening statement and you do well to keep it here where you don't have to actually defend it. Your right about one thing, it would be ugly the way I would rip it to shreds.

Sorry you showed no insight whatsoever into how the pre-Copernican scholars saw these passages. Make me wonder whether TE is shallow, or just your exploration of it.

Who did the sun marry when it came from it's pavilion? There is no doctrinal issue tied to David's illustration from the sun. David is clearly describing the antecedent glory of God being revealed in the things that were made. You would actually have to learn something about sound Biblical expositions in order to realize that.

I was referring to the passages we have been discussing in Joshua and Ecclesiastes. Psalm 19 is interesting too, though the fact it contains a poetic simile does not take away from the literal descriptions of the sun's movements in Joshua and Eccles. David certainly used the simile of the bridegroom to describe the circuit of the sun across the heavens. Doesn't take from the fact David would not compare the sun to a bridegroom running his course with joy, if he didn't think the sun moved.

None that contradicts mankind evolving unless you take the very common biblical description of God the potter making man from clay literally.

I don't know where you get 'our lineage' from either. There is nothing in scripture that says the entire human race is descended from Adam,

nor is there anything in scripture that links biological descent from Adam with Original Sin, even in the passage you thinks speak about Original Sin.

That is simply not true. There are two genealogies, the historical narrative of Genesis and confirmation in the New Testament. Adam being our first parent is clearly the view of Jesus, Paul and Luke so don't pretend you are unaware of this fact because I have refuted these unfounded rationalizations many times before.

If you are going to say "That is simply not true", you should follow it up with an actual refutation of what I said. There were three points in my statement, you ignored the first and last, and simply claimed without a shred of evidence the second was wrong. Perhaps you would like to show where Jesus Paul and Luke say the entire human race is descended from Adam. I would be good if you could deal with points 1 and 3, which are much more significant to your rejection of common ancestry and claim of 'theological importance'.

They are both the inspired word of God.

Which is a concept that is alien to your worldview.

Whether you want to think that or not, it still shows a connection between geocentrism and creationism and undermines your claim of equivocation.

 

[Assyrian]

continued...2

The passage in Joshua while being a miracle is not tied to the need for justification by Paul. The fact that scientists reject the historicity of the text is indicative of prevailing unbelief. Show me the secular scholars that are affirming the historicity of the New Testament with regards to miracles and manifestations of God and perhaps you will have a point. Otherwise your just belaboring a fallacious rhetorical statement.

My point does not depend on your side stepping. The fact is Genesis and Joshua's miracle are both passages whose literal interpretation has been contradicted by science. It is not a question of secular scholarship denying the miracle, of course they deny miracles. The problem was that even for people who believed God performed a miracle, the science challenged the very description of the miracle. Even you, while you believe God worked a miracle, share in the church's abandonment of the geocentric description because science has told us the sun does not move that way.

Genesis is an historical narrative as well as Joshua, one is not more clearly historical then the other.

Simply not true when the literal interpretation of Genesis was challenged by Jewish and Christian scholars long before modern geology and evolution while the the literal interpretation of Joshua and Ecclesiastes was unchallenged before Copernicus. Which is the text scholars could see alternative interpretations for before they had to look for them because of science? Even you admit to alternative interpretations of Genesis 1. Joshua is much more clearly a historical narrative.

The Genesis account are far more relevent to New Testament theology though while the miracle in Joshua is boiled down to a couple of isolated texts. As far as Ecclesiastes is a description of natural processes...so what?

So people's literal interpretation of the inspired word of God was mistaken and had to change when science showed them their understanding was wrong. The fact Genesis is quoted more often than Joshua does not change that fact, and I doubt that Paul, who said the all scripture is inspired by God, would have been impressed by your attempts to side line inconvenient books.

The length of days in Genesis and other literary features can and are questioned historically and presently.

So Genesis 2&3 are right beside a chapter that may not be literal, while the description of Joshua's miracle is right in the middle of a historical narrative describing the conquest of Canaan.

The fact that Adam is the first parent of humanity and sin entered the human condition through 'one man's disobedience' is not. I have explored the biological evidence and it contradicts nothing in Scripture. It is the a priori assumption of universal common descent and the preference of natural law over miraculous interpolation, as Darwin called it, that is at issue.

Being unquestioned is irrelevant when the literal interpretation of Joshua's miracle was unquestioned before Copernicus too. Though in fact Jewish commentators like Philo and Josephus questioned the literal meaning of Genesis 2&3. The literal interpretation of God making a man from clay has nothing to do with Original Sin, nor does the fact there must have been a first sin mean the description of the first sin has to be literal. The effect of this sin has much more to do with you interpretation of Romans 5 than Genesis. And while Original Sin may be a well establish tradition, biological interpretations of it inheritance have been many and varied, few today accept the original explanation that it was passed on by the sin of concupiscence because parents enjoy sex. Meanwhile the most common Protestant understanding is the Adam's sin affected the human race because he was a federal head - which has nothing to do with biological descent.

Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'. The creation of Adam would have been a 'miraculous interposition' but Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

And heliocentrism wasn't based on naturalistic assumptions?

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam.

Unless he was talking figuratively like he said in verse 14.
Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Peter 3:15.16)​

Continued next post...

Funny how when creationists quote this verse so often, yet rarely seem to consider they may be the ones misunderstanding Paul.

This is science:

This is supposition

Technically the second one is hypothesis. Clearly you prefer illustrations of simple experiments like Newton's composition of light,
over illustrations of an idea that was slowly but repeatedly confirmed over the next hundred and fifty years.

If you really want an illustration to compare with Darwin's, try this one.
This is science:

This is science too:

The only difference is Copernicus's heliocentrism took much longer to get any got of solid evidence to support it.

Nonsense, it's making a crucial distinction.

Not when the validity of a literal interpretation does not depend on whether we think the passage is 'spiritually significant' or not. Not when the 'spiritual significance' vossler saw being challenged was imagined, and not when heliocentrism brought similar worries about spiritual significance. Thinking a passage is spiritual significant does not make your interpretation infallible. After all, for 1500 years everyone saw deep spiritual significance in the real presence in the eucharist and the literal interpretation of 'This is my body'

Astronomical observations that shake peoples view of the inspiration of Scripture indicate a gross misunderstanding of both. The Scriptures never make a definitive statement regrading the movements of the planetary systems. They do speak clearly and explicitly with regards to human lineage.

The astronomy wasn't wrong, well Copernicus thought the planets moved in circles but that was close enough to start with. The interpretation of scripture was certainly wrong, we know it is because the science showed us it was wrong.

There were three reactions to this, the faith of many was shipwrecked and heliocentrism marked the beginning of the enlightenment abandonment of biblical theism for rationalism, deism and even atheism. This is illustrated by Laplace's comment on why his book on Celestial Mechanics had no mention of a God, "I have no need for such a hypothesis". In the same way today, evolution is shaking the faith of many who think science really does contradict the 'plain meaning' of scripture. Of course as you say they misunderstand both.

There were those who saw the threat of heliocentrism to the integrity and inspiration of scripture and defended the bible by attacking heliocentrism and heliocentrists. It only served to bring Christianity and the bible into greater disrepute, as the trial of Galileo shows. Yet, apart from the Inquisition, this is the approach of creationism. Defend the word of God by insisting on the traditional literal interpretation and attacking the science, the same way that failed so badly with heliocentrism.

Then you had the scholars and theologians who saw that science was building up in favour of heliocentrism, and went back to scripture to see if they could possibly have misunderstood what it was saying. It is this approach that solved the problem of heliocentrism and their understanding of these passages have served the church well for hundreds of years. And this is the approach taken by TEs in dealing with evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

continued...3

The sun will fall from the sky before I resort to some 'special pleading' in a debate with you.

You have, it hasn't.

It is equivocation and a Darwinian coctail of superficial fallacious rhetoric that is at the heart of your argument. You have failed to support your pedantic assertions and all Biblical, scientific and philsophical reasonings with you are futile.

I have shown you the close parallels with heliocentrism, you make up excuses to ignore the parallels, you interpret the geocentric passages in the light of you knowledge of science while insisting these made up reasons mean this does not apply to Genesis. That is special pleading.

The Bible contradicts nothing in science, I'm convinced that evolution is a witches brew of fact and fantasy. The scientific findings are being organized around philosophical naturalism based on naturalistic assumptions, not empirical evidence. The Bible tells our true history, what is being passed off as evolution, at least on here, is a myth.

What was the empirical evidence for heliocentrism when the church changed its interpretation? The geocentists thought Galileo's science was wrong too, they had more excuse than you do. A lot of Galileo's arguments simply were wrong, even if his conclusion was right.

Assyrian: Yet if you couldn't trust the scripture when it described the sun going round the earth, how could you trust it when it talks of the Virgin birth? There is no point saying the virgin birth has a solid Biblical foundation when they problem was heliocentrism undermining the very authority of the bible itself. We live centuries later when the church solved the problem, it doesn't mean it wasn't a very serious issue at the time.

Mark: The Scriptures are clear that Jesus was born of a virgin in the Gospel accounts. There are only a couple of passages that even mention the course of the sun and not a single quote is tied to anything remotely doctrinal. The church, like most astronomers thought the sun revolved around the earth, so what?

Assyrian:You are simply repeating your point without any attempt to address what I said.

Funny you should make a comment like that when I addressed what you said in detail

Where did you address my point? Where did you show how the Virgin birth could stand if the very scripture that supported it was undermined by heliocentrism?

only to have you ignore the substance of the post:

Mark Kennedy no one questioned it until the invention of the telescope or don't you know your history? Astronomers never questioned either. Galileo built only the second telescope capable of magnifying the heavens by 35X. Galileo got into trouble not because he was proposing a theory that contradicted Scripture, but because he went against the scientific status quo of his day. What happened was in Pisa where he taught he was arguing against Aristotelian mechanics. Previously scholars had proposed ways of reconciling Aristotelian mechanics with new discoveries and emerging sciences. Galileo was saying we have to set aside Aristotelian deductive reasoning altogether and produce a new inductive scientific method. When they could not refute him philosophically the attacked him through religion the way Darwinians attack creationists. As Galileo put it, 'the Bible tells us how to get to heave, not how the heavens work'. No essential doctrine was at risk only the Aristotelian synthesis.

When the status quo of his day got the worst of it they started attacking Galileo's religion. If you are going to make an argument then why don't you learn your history and the philosophical chess game that was playing out.​

What has that got to do with my point about the Virgin Birth?

You offered notihing substantive as a response.

That is because you weren't addressing my point when you made it. I have gone into more detail in these replies.

Heliocentrism never undermined confidence in the Scriptures. It threatened the Aristotlean synthesis otherwise known as Scholasticism. That was the issue involved and Galileo wanted to scrap Aristotlean mechanics. This did not go over well with his contemporaries who had theologians convince Pope Urbane that Galileo was a dangerous heretic. That is one of the reasons that Protestants championed the ideal of keeping politics and science separate as well as disconnecting science and religion (or metaphysics as some would describe it)

Galileo certainly challenged Aristotelean physics, that doesn't mean his heliocentrism wasn't also seen as undermining the authority of scripture.

"But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false."
Cardinal Bellarmine, Letter on Galileo​

Note how he says 'not only irritating scholastic theologians' - these were the ones who adopted Aristotelean physics and philosophy. but not only that, heliocentrism also injured the faith and rendered scripture false.

You are aware of none of this, that speaks volumns for the intellectual integrity of the evolutionists posting here.

I am actually quite aware of how Galileo challenged the church adoption of Aristotlean physics, in fact I mentioned it to both you and vossler

Your false god...
If you do want a church doctrine based on repeated texts in the NT whose literal interpretation was changed as Aristotelean physics gave way to modern science, just look at the interpretation of "This is my body". Bet you don't even take it literally yourself, though it was taken literally by everyone in the history of the church until the time of the reformation and by many protestants afterwards.​

You didn't reply.

Foundation
If science shows us an interpretation is mistaken, then any spiritual significance you see in a mistaken interpretation is mistaken too. Catholics find deep spiritual significance in the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the eucharist. They interpreted Jesus' statement "This is my body" quite literally. With Aquinas this literal interpretation was given an explanation in terms of Aristotelean physics and Aristotle's understanding of the nature of matter in terms of accidents (it's outward appearance, in this case bread and wine) and substance (its real nature, Christ's body and blood). With the overthrow of Aristotle by early modern science this no longer made sense, at least to the emerging Protestant churches no longer bound by the traditional literal interpretation of "This is my body". A new understanding of science caused Christians to question the traditional literal interpretation. Should the fact people saw spiritual significance in the literal interpretation mean we should have kept it?​

vossler simply reacted with incredulity that science had anything to do with the change in interpretation, though he did admit that just because people find deep spiritual significance in a passage it does not mean it is so.

It's been done repeatedly and you play the same circular semantics all avid Darwinian posters do. Ask the question, ignore the answer, ask the question, pretend it has not been answered, wash, rinse, repeat.

Or make a claim, fail to back it up, pretend you have, wash, rinse, repeat.

One major distinction, original sin is a Pauline doctrine, the others are extra-biblical. I'm sorry you drifted from your faith but it was not because the historicity of the Scriptures are suspect.

So by changing the subject into a personal attack, does that mean you have conceded your claim of equivocation when I describe how I left behind the doctrine of Original Sin?

No I am accusing them of unsupported accusation of logical fallacies. Like when you threw out 'equivocation' in your previous post without backing the claim up, or your unsupported claims of circular argument here

If you had a substantive argument I am more then willing to address it. What you have is an equivocation of a foundational historical narrative confirmed and exponded in the New Testament you are trying to equivocate with an isolated text. It's fallacious and repeating the original error and mimicking my critical look at your shallow arguments are deeply flawed.

What substantive argument are you talking about here? That creationists throw out accusation of fallacies without any support? That is simply an observation that you have only confirmed with your unsupported claim of 'equivocation' and 'circular argument'. I wish you would stop switching one argument for another. After you made the claim I challenged you on it and we discussed it, but that is a separate issue from the way you and other creationists throw these terms out as if mentioning them was actually an argument.

If you had something other then a few pedantic one liners you would have happily taken me up on my challenge. You claim that creationists are avoiding hard questions but when pressed on your central point you fold under the weight of your fallacious arguments.

If only you could show what my fallacious arguements are.

Had you bothered to research the issues you would have realized that lineage and cosmological models are separate issues.

Of course they are separate issues. Unfortunately they both arise the exact same way, a traditional literal interpretation of scripture being challenged by a development in science. They both present the same challenge to the integrity of scripture and result in either people turning from the bible, going back to scripture to see if there are better ways of interpreting it, or standing on their literal interpretation and claiming science got it wrong. They are different sciences and scripture passages, but it is the same problem.

As it stands you have successfully abandoned the premise of your thread leaving it defenseless.

My thread is doing fine, it is simply a discussion of different creationist strategies to avoid questions, all you have done is add to the list. This is a bit of a digression but I don't mind.

I to have abandoned much of RCC doctrine and dogma but never the core Christian doctrines they have long stood on. I debated justification by faith with a Catholic college student and agreed with much of RCC theology in the thread. Not accepting extra-biblical doctrines of the RCC is no excuse for your shallow treatment of the subject matter. You pretend that I am not making detailed and sound arguments for original sin and regarding the controversy surrounding the advent of heliocentrism.

I went into more depth in the thread where we were discussing Original Sin, you know, back when I challenged you on it and you never could come up with a scriptural basis. Here I mentioned how I left behind Original Sin to show the reason was completely unrelated to Evolution. It did not need to be discussed in depth for that, the fact I abandoned the doctrine with all the other Catholic doctrines I saw no scriptural basis for, was more then enough to show your claim had no basis.

This is simply not true and you know it. The problem is that you have exausted your argument and either repeated points that are easily refuted or abandoned them entirely.

Thanks for the exchange, God help you Assyrian

Have a nice day
Mark

Why ever would I want to repeat a point that is easily refuted?

Cheers Mark.

 

[shernren]

This is science:

You wouldn't know science if it greeted you at the door every morning. Do you have any idea how much is wrong with this picture? Red shows no refraction at the first interface, no color shows any refraction at the second interface, and all the colors show completely wrong refractions at the third and fourth interfaces.

This isn't a picture of science, or of physics. In your hands it's nothing more than a medieval veneration of an Arian alchemist who happened to be good at math.

Heliocentrism never undermined confidence in the Scriptures. It threatened the Aristotlean synthesis otherwise known as Scholasticism. That was the issue involved and Galileo wanted to scrap Aristotlean mechanics. This did not go over well with his contemporaries who had theologians convince Pope Urbane that Galileo was a dangerous heretic. That is one of the reasons that Protestants championed the ideal of keeping politics and science separate as well as disconnecting science and religion (or metaphysics as some would describe it)

You are aware of none of this, that speaks volumns for the intellectual integrity of the evolutionists posting here.

Hogwash.

Clavius was the chief Jesuit astronomer at the time the controversy brewed. He accepted both the observations of novae ("new stars") and Alphonsine trepidation (subtle motions of the Earth causing the stars above to wobble non-diurnally), which means that he believed both that the heavens could change and that the Earth could move. Not Aristotelian.

Cardinal Bellarmine was the chief inquisitor who commanded Galileo not to teach geocentrism during his first trial. He believed that the stars and planet moved through a fluid heavens "like birds through the air, or fish through the water", based on the text of Genesis 1. Again, the idea that stars and planets could display lifelike motion is completely non-Aristotelian.

Furthermore, much of the professional astronomical world at that time held to a Tychonic model. In this model, the Sun and Moon go around the Earth, but all the planets go around the Sun. In this I can even quote you a creationist source:

In Galileo’s time, science did not have to decide between Ptolemy and Copernicus. Ptolemy’s view that all planets and the sun orbited the earth, was no longer a real option. Rather it is important, ‘that the choice now lay between Copernicus and Brahe,' because everybody believed that other planets orbited the sun. The question was, whether or not the earth was moving itself or was staying in the centre of the universe. ‘Nearly no expert believed in Ptolemaic astronomy any longer. The conflict was between Tycho Brahe and Copernicus.'
​

The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? - Thesis 9

Again, a Tychonic geocentrism is hardly Aristotelian.

This is a rehash of my post four years ago on this issue: http://www.christianforums.com/t5208775/#post34248653

What did these cosmologies have in common? One thing is that they were all NOT Aristotelian. The only thing they had in common was an immobile earth at the center of the universe. And guess why the church agreed on that?

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Assyrian this video presentation is for you and for all of those who would like to see how science indeed proves the creation story and disproves the theory of evolution.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian this video presentation is for you and for all of those who would like to see how science indeed proves the creation story and disproves the theory of evolution.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Thanks, but that video is an hour an an half long, I have listened to the start but he isn't actually presenting any arguments. He discusses some of the questions science as looked at about the Big Bang, though without any reference to the evidence and explanations, instead presents the questions and then quotes a verse about God creating the stars. It isn't actually an argument, either against science or for creationism. Even if he looks at questions science is still looking for answers to, quoting a scripture verse does not mean creationism is the answer. Don't forget, just because the bible say God created something does not mean he didn't use the natural processes science is studying. God created you and me, but he used the natural processes science talks about in reproductive biology.

If there are serious points in this video, why not pick one or two of them and describe the argument yourself? It is easier to discuss and reply to text anyway. We can discuss here if you like, but it might be better to start a new thread of on the topic.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Thanks, but that video is an hour an an half long, I have listened to the start but he isn't actually presenting any arguments. He discusses some of the questions science as looked at about the Big Bang, though without any reference to the evidence and explanations, instead presents the questions and then quotes a verse about God creating the stars. It isn't actually an argument, either against science or for creationism. Even if he looks at questions science is still looking for answers to, quoting a scripture verse does not mean creationism is the answer. Don't forget, just because the bible say God created something does not mean he didn't use the natural processes science is studying. God created you and me, but he used the natural processes science talks about in reproductive biology.

If there are serious points in this video, why not pick one or two of them and describe the argument yourself? It is easier to discuss and reply to text anyway. We can discuss here if you like, but it might be better to start a new thread of on the topic.

I don't agree with your analysis at all. However, the point is this. Science cannot explain the origin of man in a way that is actually possible. You only have 2 choices: the universe came into being by chance or by design. After looking at the "coincidences" seen at the level of the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, right down to the atomic level it is undeniable that there indeed is a designer and this couldn't all fall into place so nicely by chance. It takes allot of faith to believe this is all by chance. It is more likely to win the lotto 100000 times in a row that for this entire universe to come into existence and our earth to support life by chance.

The fossil record disproves the entire theory of Darwinian evolution. The fossil record shows that animals were bigger and more diverse before which evolution holds that through mutation and natural selection, creatures started from very simple systems and became more and more complex. Very renown scientist also claim that this world could have never come into being by chance (quotations on demand). Right now I am working on a presentation on this whole issue to present at church.

The reason why I rather provide a video rather than just speak about stuff myself is because I am not a scientist and I didn't study science. Therefore, the scientist would explain it better.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I don't agree with your analysis at all. However, the point is this. Science cannot explain the origin of man in a way that is actually possible. You only have 2 choices: the universe came into being by chance or by design.

Yup, this universe was and is designed by God. Over the course of its 14 billion year history and the evolution of natural life on this planet.

-CryptoLutehran