To all athiests out there: bring it on

[Outspoken]

"I would like to believe you. Perhaps you could give an example."

Jerry, just go out to a few scientists and just drop that you're starting to doubt..you'll find out for yourself.


"Gould and Etheridge challenged some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary theory in their hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium."

No no...they questioned the HOW , not the does it happen...

"Could you possibly explain what context clues show you that there are nonliteral statements in it? I'd love to see that. Then we can compare & see if similar "clues" exist in Genesis 1."

Pick a passage.


"Do you know how controversial Origin of the Species was when it was first published?
"

Yup, amazing how the pendulem has swung to the other side where people are pressured into believing it huh?

"Why should I trust the Biblical version of creation over creation stories from other religions?"

another red herring, stick to the subject, I don't want to drag this out to another 38 pages. We are on literal versus nonliteral passages.

"You keep asserting over and over that Genesis is literal because of "context", but you haven't backed that up with why I should take it literally."

In the context of this discussion, because its nonfiction.

""Day", as used in Genesis, just represents a time period, and not a literal 24-hour day (I'm sure you've heard this lots).
"

Okay, here ya go..find one place in genesis (other then the passages in question) where the same words are used for anything OTHER then a literal night and a literal day. When you do that, we can talk. Until then you're on the back burner

"I'll trust real-world evidence over a presumed creation event in some religious text any day of the week."

then don't reply to me, I'm speaking from a christian perspective. I don't ask you do talk about the validity of the Koran, so don't expect me to speak from something other the my choosen perspective..that's silly.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Yup, amazing how the pendulem has swung to the other side where people are pressured into believing it huh?

Excuse me? Are we conspiracy theorizing now? Personally, I think there's a much, much simpler explanation as to why people accept evolutionary theory.

But if you can back up your "pressured into believing it" statement, I'm all ears.

another red herring, stick to the subject, I don't want to drag this out to another 38 pages. We are on literal versus nonliteral passages.

I agree, it's silly. But if you're going to use the argument that the Bible is "nonfiction" because it is a religious text (unless you have another justification) then you'll have to deal with the fact that there are plenty of other religious texts out there that are also treated as nonfiction.

In the context of this discussion, because its nonfiction.

Does it explicity state in Genesis, "the following is a literal, nonfictional account"?

Okay, here ya go..find one place in genesis (other then the passages in question) where the same words are used for anything OTHER then a literal night and a literal day. When you do that, we can talk. Until then you're on the back burner

As I expected, you're using the standard counterpoint.

There are two reasons, however, I believe "day" in Genesis is metaphorical rather than literal.

First of all, the planet wasn't created until the third "day". The Sun wasn't created until the fourth "day". We measure days by the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Until that system is in place, referring to those time periods as literal, 24-hour days is nonsensical.

The second reason is, I believe using "day" metaphorically puts the time into a context your average uneducated peasant could understand. Human beings can barely grasp time frames outside of our lifetimes. Millions or billions of years is practically incomphrensible. For the average uneducated peasant, I really don't think the specific amount of time is really relevant in Genesis 1 & 2, as opposed to the event it is describing.

You can put me on the "back burner" if you want, but I think that's a bit of a cop-out.

then don't reply to me, I'm speaking from a christian perspective. I don't ask you do talk about the validity of the Koran, so don't expect me to speak from something other the my choosen perspective..that's silly.

*shrug* Personally, I think it's better to try to understand other perspectives. I still don't understand why Genesis has to be a literal event in order for you to accept it, though.

 

[Outspoken]

"Personally, I think there's a much, much simpler explanation as to why people accept evolutionary theory."

Its not about accept..its about forcing that acceptance on others...


"then you'll have to deal with the fact that there are plenty of other religious texts out there that are also treated as nonfiction."

That's a red herring. Sorry, I'm not gonna go off on a tangent, if you want to go over to GA and post in the approprate thread fine, not letting you off the hook here Its nonfiction the context shows us that quite clearly.


"Does it explicity state in Genesis, "the following is a literal, nonfictional account"?"

does it explictly state that in any history book? IE..irrevant.


"We measure days by the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Until that system is in place, referring to those time periods as literal, 24-hour days is nonsensical."

Are you saying you can't have a 24 hour time period withouth light? LOL you've got to be joking. It was said that way because it was that way, sorry, this idea you put forth isn't coherrent nor does it have any logic to stand on.


"The second reason is, I believe using "day" metaphorically puts the time into a context your average uneducated peasant could understand. "

This is also illogical. If it was a longer period of time it would have said so.

You'll be on the back burner, you have no evidience thus you poistion is not valid.


"I still don't understand why Genesis has to be literal event in order for you to accept it, though."

Context

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Its not about accept..its about forcing that acceptance on others...

When has evolution ever been "forced" on someone?

Can you actually back this claim up?

That's a red herring. Sorry, I'm not gonna go off on a tangent, if you want to go over to GA and post in the approprate thread fine, not letting you off the hook here Its nonfiction the context shows us that quite clearly.

You keep saying "context" over and over as though that's supposed to mean something.

does it explictly state that in any history book? IE..irrevant.

You realize history isn't always described completely accurately, I hope. I hope you also realize that a historical description should be able to stand up to cross-referencing. I don't discount the Bible as being completely fictional, but I still don't have any reason to believe it's 100% literal (unless I choose to ignore a LOT of other evidence to contrary).

I could write a book saying WW2 never happened. I could market it as a "history" book. But in light of the physical evidence for WW2, I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into it. Likewise, if I accept the 6000 yo Biblical interpretation, then I have to discount and ignore a lot of physical evidence to the contrary. To me, doing so would just be plain ignorant.

Are you saying you can't have a 24 hour time period withouth light? LOL you've got to be joking. It was said that way because it was that way, sorry, this idea you put forth isn't coherrent nor does it have any logic to stand on.

"It was said that way because it was that way". You want to talk logic? All you have is an assertation.

This is also illogical. If it was a longer period of time it would have said so.

Again, is the time period explicitly important in relation to the actual event? Does it really matter if God took a trillion years or 6 days?

Why is this particular point so important?

And, like I said, describing billions of years to a peasant and expecting them to grasp it is ridiculous. People back then didn't have the same understanding of science and technology we do now. Genesis is easy to understand and conveying that underlying message is what I believe is really important. To expect it to be equivalent to a literal word-for-word account of what happened is silly, especially in light of what we know about our current universe.

You'll be on the back burner, you have no evidience thus you poistion is not valid.

This is funny. All you've done so far is harp "context" and "nonfictional" over and over without giving a single piece of evidence as to why Genesis is a literal event. Then you claim my position is not valid.

 

[Outspoken]

"When has evolution ever been "forced" on someone?"

Well for starters it was on me from a teacher with a PH D who didn't even want to entertain the though and that I should just accept it. (his words).

"You keep saying "context" over and over as though that's supposed to mean something.
"

If you don't understand the context, I doubt you ever will, I've explained it to you several times.

"You realize history isn't always described completely accurately, I hope."

Again, you're twisting my words. I was refering to the idea that it is a nonfictional work. Please don't twist my words, thanks.

"I could write a book saying WW2 never happened. I could market it as a "history" book. "

This would not be published under nonfiction but under fiction, very big context clue.

""It was said that way because it was that way". "

Pete, I don't think you'd know context and logic if it landed on your nose and started to wiggle The passage in genesis is literal, and you haven't given me any cause to think why it wouldn't be.

"Does it really matter if God took a trillion years or 6 days?"

Another red herring..you're a fisherman aren't you?


"This is funny. "

Yup, you're postings on this subject are a bit funny. You haven't shown me ANY evidience in the text that its a nonliteral passage, nor have you shown me an example of the words used in a nonliteral way. Three strikes you're out. When you find some evidience then we can talk.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Do you know how controversial Origin of the Species was when it was first published?
"

Yup, amazing how the pendulem has swung to the other side where people are pressured into believing it huh? 

 

I've seen some pretty mindless tripe posted on this forum since I began lurking, but the above serve of piffle has elicited the greatest degree of astonishment.

"pressured into believing"?  Poppycock!  How stupid do you think we are?  How can any rational and healthy human being be pressured into believing anything?  Can you be "pressured" into believing something?  Can you?

If so I would suggest that you declare yourself unfit as a responsible human and check into a mental hospital.

I think that this kind of cackhanded rubbish is indicative of the gymnastics that YEC apologetics forces upon its proponents.    Doublethink a prerequisite.

 

[Outspoken]

"How stupid do you think we are? "

That's a leading question I hope not at all. Lots of people can be pressured into SAYING they believe something when they don't.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"How stupid do you think we are? "

That's a leading question I hope not at all. Lots of people can be pressured into SAYING they believe something when they don't.

Aha!  But that is something else entirely, isn't it?  That's not what your original assertion implied at all.

So, the question remains.  How did such (as you would have it) a tissue of lies as Origin of Species gain such widespread acceptance if (as you would have it) it is valueless as an explanatory tool for the world as we see it?

Since the scientific world was at first opposed to Darwin's idea, don't you think that it had just the eensiest squeensiest modicum of explanatory power?   After all, it's not like the "creationist" scientists of the day just decided to flip a coin to see if they'd believe the new theory.

Cheers,

Prax

 

[Outspoken]

"That's not what your original assertion implied at all."

Oh, that's exactly what I was implying, what do you think "peer pressure" is? Its social pressure to accept an idea or behavior you think is wrong, or something to that effect.

 

[Outspoken]

"After all, it's not like the "creationist" scientists of the day just decided to flip a coin to see if they'd believe the new theory."

nope, gave the nonchristians something to latch onto, to fight back with. Now its just rooted in so deep people don't want to let it go...classic pyradyme problem.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"That's not what your original assertion implied at all."

Oh, that's exactly what I was implying, what do you think "peer pressure" is? Its social pressure to accept an idea or behavior you think is wrong, or something to that effect.

There you go, using a condescending tone again.  I know precisely what peer pressure is, and yet it remains stubbornly irrelevant to your initial statement, which was "people are pressured into believing it".

No-one can be pressured into believing anything (unless, of course, they are not rational).  This is not the same thing as being pressured into claiming a belief which is not held. 

One the one hand I can read what you wrote.  On the other, I saw your attempted explanation which claims something else entirely. This is very irritating behaviour, and does nothing to enhance your position.

Again, how stupid do you think we are? Clearly, you believe us to be very stupid if you think we won't see through such an ill-considered tactic.

 

[Outspoken]

"There you go, using a condescending tone again. "

No, I was being straight forward with what I wrote, you percieved it, I did not intend it at all.

"Again, how stupid do you think we are? Clearly, you believe us to be very stupid if you think we won't see through such an ill-considered tactic."

:rollseyes:

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"After all, it's not like the "creationist" scientists of the day just decided to flip a coin to see if they'd believe the new theory."

nope, gave the nonchristians something to latch onto, to fight back with. Now its just rooted in so deep people don't want to let it go...classic pyradyme problem.

What? What?!

What non-Christians?  By far the vast majority of practicing scientists in Europe (and the US, for that matter) in the 19th century were Christian.  It was they that eventually accepted the ToE - not some nebulous group of "nonchristian" scientists.

You're just making this stuff up now, aren't you?

 

Oh, and the word is "paradigm".  Still, if you're going to invent your own facts you may as well be crafting your own words too. 

 

[Praxiteles]

Oh, BTW, I know my tone has been less than amiable. For that I apologise. Sorry.

Also, Happy New Year!

 

[Outspoken]

"It was they that eventually accepted the ToE - not some nebulous group of "nonchristian" scientists."

I wouldn't say that, but if you say so.

"Still, if you're going to invent your own facts you may as well be crafting your own words too. "

type-o

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Outspoken


"Again, how stupid do you think we are? Clearly, you believe us to be very stupid if you think we won't see through such an ill-considered tactic."

:rollseyes:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

So, how do you explain the apparent change of meaning mid-stream?  Or was "people are pressured into believing it" merely a typo?

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"It was they that eventually accepted the ToE - not some nebulous group of "nonchristian" scientists."

I wouldn't say that, but if you say so.

For goodness' sake, don't take my word for it.  Study up on it for yourself. 

"Still, if you're going to invent your own facts you may as well be crafting your own words too. "

type-o

U-huh.  "parodigm" or "paradihm" would be typos.  But, as you say above, if you say so.

 

[Outspoken]

"So, how do you explain the apparent change of meaning mid-stream? "

You mean your apparent misunderstanding of what the words peer pressure mean? I thought it was pretty straight forward stuff, guess not.

"Study up on it for yourself. "

i did, thus my conclusion thanks. Not EVERYONE in that day and age was a christian, it was "peer" pressured thing. get it?

 

[Praxiteles]

Must away. Off to celebrate the end of 2002.

It has been fun (honest!) chatting.

Cheers,
Prax

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Well for starters it was on me from a teacher with a PH D who didn't even want to entertain the though and that I should just accept it. (his words).

So? You don't believe in ToE. You were able to excercise your own judgement in the matter, regardless of what some teacher thought. This doesn't look like it was forced on you.

Yup, you're postings on this subject are a bit funny. You haven't shown me ANY evidience in the text that its a nonliteral passage, nor have you shown me an example of the words used in a nonliteral way.

Okay, I will admit that I do not have evidence within the text that explicitly states it is non-literal. However, you also do not have evidence within the text that explicitly states it is 100% literal.

My belief that Genesis is non-literal is based on rationalizing the real-world evidence with the passages in Genesis, and also taking into context the audience for which Genesis was written for at the time. If you want to dismiss that, then fine, that's your choice.

But since all we're going to do is run around in circles here, let me just ask you again. Why is it so important to you that Genesis has to be a literal account for you to accept it?