Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[HitchSlap]

Fine.

Then take over this conversation and show HitchSlap the error of his ways.

I don't consider myself a very effective apologetic for theistic evolution.

Just can't get any help around here, can ya'? Maybe you should just stick to the argument you're most comfortable with.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has all the earmarks of any ancient culture attempting to describe their origins.

* paging theistic evolutionists *

Hitchy, what about allegorists? are they in the same boat as myth writers?

Are you saying Genesis 1 isn't even an allegory?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just can't get any help around here, can ya'? Maybe you should just stick to the argument you're most comfortable with.

I'd like to abandon this conversation, but when you put all creationists in the same category, it's time to employ some ... you know ... cladistics?

Now there's a novel idea, isn't there?

 

[HitchSlap]

* paging theistic evolutionists *

Hitchy, what about allegorists? are they in the same boat as myth writers?

Are you saying Genesis 1 isn't even an allegory?

Look Alfred, G1/2 is, allegory / myth / fable.

Do you accept G1/2 as literal fact?

 

[HitchSlap]

I'd like to abandon this conversation, but when you put all creationists in the same category, it's time to employ some ... you know ... cladistics?

Now there's a novel idea, isn't there?

Yes, everyone who believes G1/2 as literal fact, is a creationist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Look Alfred, G1/2 is, allegory / myth / fable.

Hmmm ... just shotgun a bevy of literary styles and one of them has to be right.

Is that your style?

 

[HitchSlap]

Hmmm ... just shotgun a bevy of literary styles and one of them has to be right.

Is that your style?

G1/2 is a mythical creation account containing allegory and fable.

Do you accept this as literal fact / history?

 

[AV1611VET]

Look Alfred, G1/2 is, allegory / myth / fable.

Hmmm ... just shotgun a bevy of literary styles and one of them has to be right.

G1/2 is a mythical creation account containing allegory and fable.

I didn't mean that literally.

It was rhetorical.

 

[HitchSlap]

So you don't believe it, then.

Got it.

I didn't mean that literally.

It was rhetorical.

don't

 

[Hoghead1]

It would appear, OzSpen, you have absolutely no knowledge of postmodern Protestant churches or of Protestantism, period. Yes, they are definitely Christian. They may not agree with your definition of Christians. But that is purely your own opinion based largely on your ignorance of the matter. I don't want to burst your bubble, but you are not the pope. You have neither th3 education nor the authority to rule on what is Protestant, what no, what Christian, what not.
As to science, , I have said before and will say again, God is not a scientific question to start with. I have already pointed this out to you several times, OzSpen. If you want to be critical of me, at least pay attention to my posts, so that your comments, sarcastic or otherwise, are at least on target.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would appear, OzSpen, you have absolutely no knowledge of postmodern Protestant churches or of Protestantism, period. Yes, they are definitely Christian. They may not agree with your definition of Christians. But that is purely your own opinion based largely on your ignorance of the matter. I don't want to burst your bubble, but you are not the pope. You have neither th3 education nor the authority to rule on what is Protestant, what no, what Christian, what not.
As to science, , I have said before and will say again, God is not a scientific question to start with. I have already pointed this out to you several times, OzSpen. If you want to be critical of me, at least pay attention to my posts, so that your comments, sarcastic or otherwise, are at least on target.

Other than your own brothers & sisters in Christ, what exactly are you protesting, Hoghead1?

What exactly is Protestantism perpetuating today?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'd like to abandon this conversation, but when you put all creationists in the same category, it's time to employ some ... you know ... cladistics?

Now there's a novel idea, isn't there?

*PsychoSarah comes to AV's aid. She isn't a theistic evolutionist, but has some experience defending that position*

 

[PsychoSarah]

G1/2 is a mythical creation account containing allegory and fable.

Do you accept this as literal fact / history?

Some people do, and some people don't. Scripturally, it doesn't actually matter if one takes it literally or not, they will be saved as long as they are believers.

The allegorical interpretation I consider the most likely is that the Creation story and the Fall amount to a reference to the rise of agriculture, which made life more complicated, but also opened up more possibilities.

You know very well that a literal biblical interpretation is not a prerequisite for a belief in a deity being reasonable. Personally, even if a deity told ancient people about evolution or actual universe origins, through years of passing the story orally and having a limited language to write it down in, I doubt those people would have been able to record it in a recognizable way, let alone understand it themselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

*PsychoSarah comes to AV's aid.

Yay!

Thank you, Sarah!

 

[OzSpen]

It has all the earmarks of any ancient culture attempting to describe their origins. The Hebrew account is no exception.

Add modern science to our understanding of human origins and cosmology, and it becomes patently obvious that all creation stories were primitive attempts at making sense of the world.

The difference now is, we have science on our side.

And you provide no one criterion to determine what makes something historical narrative or mythology. Not one. We can't have a reasonable discussion when you make attempts to push your view like this.

 

[OzSpen]

It would appear, OzSpen, you have absolutely no knowledge of postmodern Protestant churches or of Protestantism, period. Yes, they are definitely Christian. They may not agree with your definition of Christians. But that is purely your own opinion based largely on your ignorance of the matter. I don't want to burst your bubble, but you are not the pope. You have neither th3 education nor the authority to rule on what is Protestant, what no, what Christian, what not.
As to science, , I have said before and will say again, God is not a scientific question to start with. I have already pointed this out to you several times, OzSpen. If you want to be critical of me, at least pay attention to my posts, so that your comments, sarcastic or otherwise, are at least on target.

Your fallacy of appeal to ridicule doesn't work with me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your fallacy of appeal to ridicule doesn't work with me.

You really should not use logical arguments until you understand how they work. He did not use a "fallacy of appeal to ridicule" on you. He simply pointed out some of your flaws.

Perhaps you should focus on the topic of the thread.

 

[OzSpen]

You really should not use logical arguments until you understand how they work. He did not use a "fallacy of appeal to ridicule" on you. He simply pointed out some of your flaws.

Perhaps you should focus on the topic of the thread.

He did ridicule me, thus using a fallacy of appeal to ridicule. We cannot have a logical discussion when he uses it. You know that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He did ridicule me, thus using a fallacy of appeal to ridicule. We cannot have a logical discussion when he uses it. You know that.

Just because someone ridicules you does not means that he used that logical fallacy. Quite often people earn ridicule on top of being wrong. If you want to claim that he used that fallacy you have to show how his ridicule "proved" that you were wrong. He did not do this. The ridicule was just a bonus.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Your fallacy of appeal to ridicule doesn't work with me.

Appeal from the rules of this site then: it is explicitly against the rules to state that others that claim to be Christian aren't. Anyone that believes in YHWH and accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is a Christian as far as this site is concerned.

Protestants definitely fit the bill for that, don't you think?