(Moved) Some controversy over creation is unnecessary

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is nothing in my post that indicates that I haven't already spent a significant amount of time looking at modern scientific research related to the origins of our universe; however, that was not the point of my post.

OK, so what was the point of your post- was it just about scriptural interpretation? i.e. where's the science? it appears to be in the wrong forum...

 

[benelchi]

The statement was "there is no "real evidence" in scripture," and yes, taken at face value, it does dismiss the text as "simply fictitious."

No one is dismissing the Bible texts as "simply fictitious." The statement is that there is no scientific evidence in the Bible. The Bible may be correct to some degree in describing events of the past but the evidence comes from the work of the archaeologists.

 

[benelchi]

You have presented a false dichotomy; the choice isn't binary.

Fine, I should have been clearer. A more proper statement would have been there is no real evidence in scripture for the debate on the creation myth. I thought that the meaning was obvious from context. I am not playing games. It appears that there was a simple misunderstanding.



Clearly some parts are inaccurate, at best. But if you wish you can reinterpret Genesis to suit your beliefs, or look at it as a morality tale. In that case, even though it did not happen, it would not be a lie as so many creationists like to claim. Just as no one is disappointed that animals do not talk like in Aesop's Fables, the stories still have value. But if one insists that the Genesis accounts are accurate or the Bible is a lie, again as only creationists do, then those people are harming Christianity since much of it is obviously false.

 

[Speedwell]

The statement was "there is no "real evidence" in scripture," and yes, taken at face value, it does dismiss the text as "simply fictitious."

The point is moot. The Bible simply does not teach the age of the Earth, old or young. Any attempt to deduce the age of the Earth from the Bible is a misuse of scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have presented a false dichotomy; the choice isn't binary.

Where did I present a false dichotomy? Details please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The statement was "there is no "real evidence" in scripture," and yes, taken at face value, it does dismiss the text as "simply fictitious."

If we are talking about the creation story in the Bible the bottom line is that that story is fictitious. No "7 days", there never were only two humans, no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth, no Tower of Babel. Now it may be a series of morality tales, but the morals seem to be missing.

 

[benelchi]

If we are talking about the creation story in the Bible the bottom line is that that story is fictitious. No "7 days", there never were only two humans, no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth, no Tower of Babel. Now it may be a series of morality tales, but the morals seem to be missing.

Let's take a look at your "bottom line"

1. No "7 days" - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
2. Never were only two humans - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this.
3. no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
4. No Tower of Babel - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this.

Bottom line, your response here demonstrates the same kind of dogmatism found in the AiG article and, although it comes from the opposite end of the spectrum, it is a demonstration of the same problem that characterizes far too much of this debate.

 

[benelchi]

Where did I present a false dichotomy? Details please.

You said, "you can reinterpret Genesis to suit your beliefs, or look at it as a morality tale"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's take a look at your "bottom line"

1. No "7 days" - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?

Actually that was a dig at creationists.

1. Never were only two humans - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this.

That is a poorly asked question, but in the colloquial use of the word "proof", yes I can.

1. no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?

It would be pretty hard to interpret that one any differently. Besides it portrays your God as a rather evil being no matter how you try to justify it.

1. No Tower of Babel - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this.

Please, at least do some of your own homework.

Bottom line, your response here demonstrates the same kind of dogmatism found in the AiG article and, although it comes from the opposite end of the spectrum, it is a demonstration of the same problem that characterizes far too much of this debate.

Now you make false claims about me? There was no dogma there. If you can't be honest there is not much point in continuing.I

If you want more info on anything that you did not understand simply ask politely and properly. Everything that I wrote was obvious. And one question at a time if you want any detail at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said, "you can reinterpret Genesis to suit your beliefs, or look at it as a morality tale"

And?

By the way, quotes out of context are a bit of a no no in debates and discussions.

 

[benelchi]

That is a poorly asked question, but in the colloquial use of the word "proof", yes I can.

I would like to see the scientific evidence that "proves" this hypothesis. Even scientists that do not have any stake in the Creation/Evolution debate do not consider this a proven conclusion.

It would be pretty hard to interpret that one any differently. Besides it portrays your God as a rather evil being no matter how you try to justify it.

Interestingly, Hebrew scholars disagree with your conclusion. Debates over how to interpret this passage in translation have been quite common. I am curious how you would translate the following, and what would be the basis for your translation?

המבול היה על הארץ הזאת

Would "The flood covered this land" or "The flood covered this earth" be a more accurate translation? How does google translate it? (Google Translate)

That is just one of the textual questions that translators struggle with when looking at this passage.

Please, at least do some of your own homework.

I have done so long ago, and it was not I who made this ludicrous statement. As it stands, only about 10% of KNOWN archeological sites have been excavated, and several ANE sources reference a "tower of Babel." Many ANE scholars believe that there was a historical site which is alluded to in these stories. Because archeology always provides a very incomplete picture of history, in archeology there is a very well known saying unique to this field of study i.e. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Again, if you know of any research that provides conclusive evidenced forts the idea that a "tower of Babel" never existed, I would like to see it. In all of my studies I have never come across this research. Since this is your claim, the burden of proof false on you.

Now you make false claims about me? There was no dogma there. If you can't be honest there is not much point in continuing.I

If you want more info on anything that you did not understand simply ask politely and properly. Everything that I wrote was obvious. And one question at a time if you want any detail at all.

I did not make a false claim about you, I simply noted the four very dogmatic points you made; points that I do not believe you can support nearly as strongly has you have suggested.

 

[benelchi]

And?

By the way, quotes out of context are a bit of a no no in debates and discussions.

Claiming that this was taken out of context implies that it would have meant something very differently if read in the full context from which the quote was taken. I am not sure how this would have meant something different if it was read within the full context. The concluding statement in your original quote seems only to strengthen the impression that conveyed in this quote. If you believe I have misunderstood you, then please explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would like to see the scientific evidence that "proves" this hypothesis. Even scientists that do not have any stake in the Creation/Evolution debate do not consider this a proven conclusion.

This is really basic. In the world of science there is no creation/evolution debate. The creationism side lost over one hundred years ago. And populations evolve, not people. You do not understand this very well at all as shown by your statement.

Interestingly, Hebrew scholars disagree with your conclusion. Debates over how to interpret this passage in translation have been quite common. I am curious how you would translate the following, and what would be the basis for your translation?

המבול היה על הארץ הזאת

Would "The flood covered this land" or "The flood covered this earth" be a more accurate translation? How does google translate it? (Google Translate)

That is just one of the textual questions that translators struggle with when looking at this passage.


I have done so long ago, and it was not I who made this ludicrous statement. As it stands, only about 10% of KNOWN archeological sites have been excavated, and several ANE sources reference a "tower of Babel." Many ANE scholars believe that there was a historical site which is alluded to in these stories. Because archeology always provides a very incomplete picture of history, in archeology there is a very well known saying unique to this field of study i.e. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Again, if you know of any research that provides conclusive evidenced forts the idea that a "tower of Babel" never existed, I would like to see it. In all of my studies I have never come across this research. Since this is your claim, the burden of proof false on you.

Did you have that much trouble understanding my post? It is rather apparent that you will go to great lengths to misinterpret the people that you are debating. Try again.

I did not make a false claim about you, I simply noted the four very dogmatic points you made; points that I do not believe you can support nearly as strongly has you have suggested.

None of my points were dogmatic. Either you do not understand that word or you were making false claims about me. And you have not been very honest in this reply either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claiming that this was taken out of context implies that it would have meant something very differently if read in the full context from which the quote was taken. I am not sure how this would have meant something different if it was read within the full context. The concluding statement in your original quote seems only to strengthen the impression that conveyed in this quote. If you believe I have misunderstood you, then please explain.

You are not worth the bother.

If you want a discussion then clean up your act.

 

[benelchi]

You are not worth the bother.

If you want a discussion then clean up your act.

You either try and dodge the questions (see your response above), or kick up the dust and hope no one notices (this post). Neither is intellectually honest.

You originally made the statement that "If we are talking about the creation story in the Bible the bottom line is that that story is fictitious. No "7 days", there never were only two humans, no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth, no Tower of Babel."

I asked that we take a look at your "bottom line"

1. No "7 days" - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
2. Never were only two humans - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this?
3. no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
4. No Tower of Babel - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this?

Until you are willing to respond to the questions I asked with an intelligent response rather than with insults and misdirection, I will not of no further response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You either try and dodge the questions (see your response above), or kick up the dust and hope no one notices (this post). Neither is intellectually honest.

Wrong. I answered your questions, at least when you were showing a little honesty. I don't have very much patience tonight.

You originally made the statement that "If we are talking about the creation story in the Bible the bottom line is that that story is fictitious. No "7 days", there never were only two humans, no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth, no Tower of Babel."

I asked that we take a look at your "bottom line"

1. No "7 days" - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
2. Never were only two humans - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this?
3. no flood of Noah that wiped out all life on Earth - Are you sure you are understanding the text as it was intended?
4. No Tower of Babel - Can you please provide the scientific proof for this?

Until you are willing to respond to the questions I asked with an intelligent response rather than with insults and misdirection, I will not of no further response.

Where did I insult you? And you were far from polite when you asked.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

benelchi, I will make you an offer, earlier I told you that if you asked a question I would answer it on any of the so called "dogma" that I listed. One question at a time, one answer. I already gave you one but it was short since you asked several questions. But the simple fact that populations evolve and not individuals was a valid answer. I will flesh it out more for you. It is late so the answer will come tomorrow.

 

[benelchi]

benelchi, I will make you an offer, earlier I told you that if you asked a question I would answer it on any of the so called "dogma" that I listed. One question at a time, one answer. I already gave you one but it was short since you asked several questions. But the simple fact that populations evolve and not individuals was a valid answer. I will flesh it out more for you. It is late so the answer will come tomorrow.

I will look for your response. A few thoughts:

Evolutionists who hold to gradualism need to explain why the fossil record doesn't appear to support their theory; if a population gradually evolves we should see significantly different evidence for this in the fossil record.

Evolutionists who hold to a theory of punctuated equilibrium need to explain the mechanism that causes these rapid changes that happened far too quickly to be explained by random mutations.

Additionally, the fact that (even among evolutionists) there are competing theories demonstrates the point of this thread i.e. there is simply not enough definitive evidence for the dogmatism that characterizes far too much of this debate.

 

[Speedwell]

I will look for your response. A few thoughts:

Evolutionists who hold to gradualism need to explain why the fossil record doesn't appear to support their theory; if a population gradually evolves we should see significantly different evidence for this in the fossil record.

Evolutionists who hold to a theory of punctuated equilibrium need to explain the mechanism that causes these rapid changes that happened far too quickly to be explained by random mutations.

Additionally, the fact that (even among evolutionists) there are competing theories demonstrates the point of this thread i.e. there is simply not enough definitive evidence for the dogmatism that characterizes far too much of this debate.

If you were really interested in understanding evolution rather than just trying to debunk it a little reading would make clear to you that there are not two competing theories. Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are part and parcel of the same theory. Under some conditions you get one, under different conditions you get the other.

 

[benelchi]

If you were really interested in understanding evolution rather than just trying to debunk it a little reading would make clear to you that there are not two competing theories. Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are part and parcel of the same theory. Under some conditions you get one, under different conditions you get the other.

Speedwell, I have read quite a bit and not all evolutionists accept Gould's proposition. Some reject it altogether, some have adopted moderated position (like the one you propose), and some have embraced it. So far, no one has identified a mechanism that explains the punctuations.