[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[lordkalvan]

I am not the one that keeps arguing that "there exists" a third option -- you do.

I have yet to see you demonstrate that both sides accept the solution that you claim they do, or even that there are only two sides. Again, assertion is easy but the supporting argument weak. That is why the burden of proof rests with you.

.... were you to claim that the easter bunny lives in a candy store on the far side of the moon from earth.

Wild claims have to be substantiated by the one making them.

Obviously.

I am bemused that you regard the suggestion that there may be more than the two viewpoints you assert as a wild claim.

(As it normally goes for these threads - I seem to be left with the job of pointing out the obvious points).

And with the job of ignoring the substance of others' points to repeat your own ad infinitum as if simple repetition imparts greater authority.

You argue the point that there are only two solutions to your stated problem,

And I show them BOTH due to the incredibly obvious nature of the language in the text..

You continue to claim that 'the nature of the language in the text' is 'incredibly obvious'. I disagree with you absolutely about this. I have shown you why I disagree. Telling me over and over that 'the language in the text' is 'incredibly obvious' does not persuade me that your interpretation is the only interpretation possible.

You argue that there are three -- and then provide nothing to back up such a claim.

No, I question your determination that there are only two. One possible further interpretation I have given you is my own, but you refuse to acknowledge this as reasonable because you see it as entirely subjective. I see your interpretation as entirely subjective as well, but you refuse to understand why this is so, insisting that exegesis must provide objective certainty based on the text alone. And I say again that exegesis only presumes to provide objective certainty; you have no assurance that it does so for you bring to any analysis a pre-existing baggage of conscious and unconscious assumptions, values, beliefs, understandings, prejudices and biases that inevitably influence directly and indirectly your (or anyone else's) ability to analyse text objectively, especially when that text has demonstrably allegorical overtones and uses a vocabulary, in the original language, where words can have several shades of meaning which have to be translated into the reader's own language by translators who have their own baggage as well. If you do not understand this, perhaps you should sign up for a course on the critical analysis of literature - and maybe even one on the many misunderstandings that can arise in the translation of documents and books.

[quote:e7284] You see the world as either this or that when I see it as many shades inbetween.

Great -- now you claim to have even more than 3 for non-Darwnists.

I will accept you providing factual support for just one.

Please go ahead and provide factual evidence for your claim at any moment you feel is right.[/quote:e7284]
Please refer to my argument above.

[quote:e7284]L.K
I may have missed an earlier reply to this point, in which case I am sorry, but is someone who accepts the fact of microevolution but denies the fact of macroevolution a 'Darwinist' or a 'non-Darwinist'?

All Creationists I know - do that.[/quote:e7284]
If I understand you to say that all creationists accept the fact of microevolution, then I do not understand how you can so coveniently divide the world into 'Darwinists' and 'non-Darwinists'. You demonstrate perfectly my argument that there are many shades between black and white, between the either this or that argument you have been using throughout this argument. You lie somewhere along the spectrum of the absolute denial of evolutionary theory at one end and the absolute acceptance of evolutionary theory at the other. You are, indeed, a little bit of a 'Darwinist' after all, just not quite as much of one as you believe me to be. Welcome to the world of shades of grey.

[quote:e7284]L.K
How could Moses, or anyone else at that time, be supposed to be 'thinking Darwinism'? Most of them probably thought the world was flat and the stars just tiny lights in the sky. Does this mean that whatever they were thinking must ipso facto have been correct?

Bob said -
In which case EVEN in your model the OBVIOUS conclusion they draw from the way the text is framed is?.... (you like dancing around that point for some reason)

This is where you say "They read this text and then concluded that the SIX DAYS the LORD MADE meant..." because they were thinking the stars were tiny lights in the sky.[/quote:e7284]

I do not understand how this addresses my question at all. How do I know the 'obvious conclusion' long dead individuals from an entirely different, pre-scientific culture would have drawn from a text that I cannot read in the original language and that most of them, being themselves illiterate, would have had interpreted for them by priests?

Ok -- so still not ready to commit on that one - eh?

You persist in the fallacious belief that there is only one obvious conclusion to be drawn, that you have incontrovertibly drawn it and that no other conclusion can be admitted as a possibility.

Remember you are the one who admits they are not teaching darwinism and you are among those here who can easily read the plain language in the text.

so... we will continue to wait for you to come around on that one.

The corollary of 'not teaching darwinism' is not 'teaching non-Darwinism', which your statement appears to imply. You again persist in assuming that anyone who reads the same text as you can only come to the same reasonable and reasoned and absolutely certain conclusion as yourself about that text.

[quote:e7284]L.K
You asked a hypothetical question. I provided you with a hypothetical answer.

In case of the "non-darwinist coming up with something OTHER THAN the obvious reading of the text" we have "only you" as a source for that.[/quote:e7284]
This seems to be simply a reiteration of your argument that there is, indeed, only one conclusion that can be arrived at from an 'obvious reading of the text' and that that conclusion is yours. I have asked you before, if your conclusions from your exegesis of Exodus is so overwhelmingly persuasive, why did biblical scholars in Talmudic times and the Middle Ages, and why do biblical scholars still persist today, in arguing that the days of creation in Genesis are not actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today? This simple fact wholly undermines any claim you make that Exodus overwhelmingly and irrefutably confirms the fact that the days of creation in Genesis were actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today.

Nothing hypothetical about that from my point of view -- I do not conjecture that such a thing exists -- but clearly you imagine that it exists.

I conjecture only that your certainty is misplaced and I have shown you why.

I simply ask that you provide something other than imagination as support for your guess -- and innexplicably, you keep claiming that this is my job.

I have only asked you to consider the possibility that your argument lacks the certainty you claim for it. This is not a guess.

[quote:e7284]L.K.
I do not need to provide you with an example; I only need to show that the possibility of an alternative viewpoint exists.

I see that that exercise in imagination clearly satisifies your need for actual substantive evidence ...

needless to say -- I do not go for simply "making stuff up" as "all the evidence needed".[/quote:e7284]
Your entire argument is devoid of evidence. Biblical exegesis is evidence only of the psychology of the individuals who carry it out and but one step removed from 'making stuff up' to fit with their self-deceiving conviction that subjective analysis of subjective text in some way serves as evidence for that text being in some way true.

Clearly we differ there. But as Patterson notes "Stories in Darwinism about how one thing came from another - are stories easy enough to tell but not science".

Implying what, exactly? That exegesis is in some contrasting way real science? That creationism is a bastion of logical rationality? I don't follow your point.

Perhaps this is just "something you get used to" if you are a Darwinist.

Who knows!?

[/quote]
Clearly not yourself if you believe that all that supports evolutionary theory is 'stories', or that Dr Patterson believed this also.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW if you want examples of BENEFICIAL mutations as opposed to examples of increased DNA complexity, that is a different story.

We already are informed about "stories about how one thing came from another... stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" (Colin Patterson)...

Remember?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I am not the one that keeps arguing that "there exists" a third option -- you do.

I have yet to see you demonstrate that both sides accept the solution that you claim they do, or even that there are only two sides.

Again, assertion is easy but the supporting argument weak.

Fine... one point at a time then.

But let's get you to declare you position in a bit more "objective way" before we go down another useless "prove it to me... ok here it is proven... oh ok well I will just ignore it anyway" trail.

My argument is that BOTH Darwinists AND YEC Chrisitans ADMIT to the glaringly obvious gap we SEE in the BIBLe - IN texts like Exodus 20:8-11. That this is FAR form the vaguary that some darwinist-Christians imagine to themselves - that it is soooo glaringly obvious that even those on opposite sides of the Darwinist-Christian divide BOTH see the point clearly.

THIS is the point you are asking for in terms of "documentation"??

Are you sure you are willing to step out into such an objective and testable - verifiable position that can be shown to be true or false?

Bob

 

[Snidey]

BTW if you want examples of BENEFICIAL mutations as opposed to examples of increased DNA complexity, that is a different story.

We already are informed about "stories about how one thing came from another... stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" (Colin Patterson)...

Remember?

Bob

Remember the Patterson quotes that you plaster all over this board as spamtastically as you can without ever addressing actual points because you don't understand the science? Yes, I remember those quotes.

 

[BobRyan]

L.K
You asked a hypothetical question. I provided you with a hypothetical answer.

Bob said

In case of the "non-darwinist coming up with something OTHER THAN the obvious reading of the text" we have "only you" as a source for that.

Recall that "only YOU" argue for the existence of NON-DARWINISTS that come up witht some rendering of Exodus 20:8-11 that is anything OTHER than the obvious meaning we all SEE it to have (all - as in Darwinists AND YEC Christians agreeing on this point)

For that mythical non-Darwinist blunder - we have only "you" speculating the scenario and arguing that your imagination "alone" is sufficient to establish it as fact -- no "actual case" need be found.

to which we get this response from you

This seems to be simply a reiteration of your argument that there is, indeed, only one conclusion that can be arrived at from an 'obvious reading of the text' and that that conclusion is yours.

My argument is

1. that in our discussion only I provide a solution agreed to by BOTH Darwinists and non-Darwinists due to it's incredibly "obvious" nature in reading the incredibly "easy to read" text of Exodus 20:8-11.

2. The solution that Barbarian and you prefer is a bend-and-wrench of the text that does not even being to attempt objectivity in the form of exegesis -- rather you openly attack objectivity when it comes to reading the text.

How much easier can this get??

L.K
I have asked you before, if your conclusions from your exegesis of Exodus is so overwhelmingly persuasive, why did biblical scholars in Talmudic times and the Middle Ages, and why do biblical scholars still persist today, in arguing that the days of creation in Genesis are not actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today? This simple fact wholly undermines any claim you make that Exodus overwhelmingly and irrefutably confirms the fact that the days of creation in Genesis were actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today.

I have pointed out before that you NEVER show ANY SOURCE EVER actually DOING an exegetical review of Exodus 20:8-11 SHOWING how the text can easily be bent or wrenched so that it "redefines day mid sentence any time Darwinism needs it to survive the text".

Your response is that such objectivity is not needed and the lack of it should not continue to be "noticed".

Secondly you argue that we need to ignore Exodus 20 and go to some other text in Genesis that might be bent a little easier than the one in Exodus 20. I am willing to go there if we can establish that your argument will admit to the "glaringly obvious" when it sees it.

If your arguments are not even objective and open minded enough to admit to these incredibly obvious points that both Darwinists and YEC Christians see clearly -- where is the "credibility" in your methods to deal with less obvious examples?

As for your "proof from the dark ages" -- the point in referencing Orthodox Rabbis is for their proven and demonstrated success in the Hebrew language -- NOT for their ability to doubt, discount and ignore the text as their tradition may dictate. For example they teach that Satan is "a good angel". The "objectivity" in my methods is to appeal to their demonstrated strengths that everyone on both sides of the issue can easily and objectively see -- not to blindly resort to any old conlusion they give from tradition and equivocate across all that they say as if that was a "compelling" form of proof for a debated point.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

L.K.
I do not need to provide you with an example; I only need to show that the possibility of an alternative viewpoint exists.

[quote:5e42c]Bob said
I see that that exercise in imagination clearly satisifies your need for actual substantive evidence ...

needless to say -- I do not go for simply "making stuff up" as "all the evidence needed".

Your entire argument is devoid of evidence. Biblical exegesis is evidence only of the psychology of the individuals who carry it out and but one step removed from 'making stuff up' to fit with their self-deceiving conviction that subjective analysis of subjective text in some way serves as evidence for that text being in some way true.
[/quote:5e42c]

Fine you eisegetically "imagine" into the text what Darwinism needs -- and clam that simply imagining it satisifies you -- then you attack the objectivity in the well-accepted well-defined exegetical method, and you declare the text of scripture to be unreliable and corrupt...

How then do your methods, assertions and conclusions regarding God's Word differ from outright atheism or at best agnosticism?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Fine... one point at a time then.

But let's get you to declare you position in a bit more "objective way" before we go down another useless "prove it to me... ok here it is proven... oh ok well I will just ignore it anyway" trail.

You have yet to prove anything, which is rather my point.

My argument is that BOTH Darwinists AND YEC Chrisitans ADMIT to the glaringly obvious gap we SEE in the BIBLe - IN texts like Exodus 20:8-11. That this is FAR form the vaguary that some darwinist-Christians imagine to themselves - that it is soooo glaringly obvious that even those on opposite sides of the Darwinist-Christian divide BOTH see the point clearly.

Is that some, many or all 'Darwinists'? You will also need to establish that we both understand what you mean by 'Darwinists'.

THIS is the point you are asking for in terms of "documentation"??

I thought I had made my request reasonably clear. I am again puzzled by your use of quotation marks. Also, why two interrogatives? Are you so amazed at the stupidity of my request that you can't believe it?

Are you sure you are willing to step out into such an objective and testable - verifiable position that can be shown to be true or false?

Within the terms of the minor qualifications I have raised, you may fire at will, Gridley. I don't know why you think I would be trembling with fear at such a prospect.

 

[lordkalvan]

Recall that "only YOU" argue for the existence of NON-DARWINISTS that come up witht some rendering of Exodus 20:8-11 that is anything OTHER than the obvious meaning we all SEE it to have (all - as in Darwinists AND YEC Christians agreeing on this point)

For that mythical non-Darwinist blunder - we have only "you" speculating the scenario and arguing that your imagination "alone" is sufficient to establish it as fact -- no "actual case" need be found.

You are obsessed with the existence of these 'non-Darwinist' creatures of your own conjuring. That an interpretation of text different from yours is offered is not an exercise in imagination, it is an exercise in critical thinking and literary analysis. I can provide such an interpretation of the text myself, based on the understanding that yom has shades of meaning, that day can be used metaphorically in English, that text is allegorical and that we can never be certain that we fully understand the intent of the original author(s) as they are not around to be asked about it.

My argument is

1. that in our discussion only I provide a solution agreed to by BOTH Darwinists and non-Darwinists due to it's incredibly "obvious" nature in reading the incredibly "easy to read" text of Exodus 20:8-11.

That text is 'easy to read' does not make its meaning 'obvious'.

This quotation from Psalm 90 is 'easy to read', but is its meaning 'obvious'?

90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

90:5 Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.

90:6 In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

Is this reference to 'yesterday' to a 'day' that is figurative or metaphorical, or is it to a 'day' that is an actual, literal 24-hour day? How do you justify your conclusion? If a thousand years can be like one day to God, how can the 'day' of Exodus be so confidently determined to be an actual, literal 24-hour day?

2. The solution that Barbarian and you prefer is a bend-and-wrench of the text that does not even being to attempt objectivity in the form of exegesis -- rather you openly attack objectivity when it comes to reading the text.

How much easier can this get??

I am sure Barbarian can speak for him/herself. If you still think that I believe exegesis provides the certainty of objectivity, you have been paying no attention at all to what I have been saying. I do not 'attack objectivity', I say that in the context of biblical exegesis it is illusory and self-deluding.

[quote:e9871]L.K
I have asked you before, if your conclusions from your exegesis of Exodus is so overwhelmingly persuasive, why did biblical scholars in Talmudic times and the Middle Ages, and why do biblical scholars still persist today, in arguing that the days of creation in Genesis are not actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today? This simple fact wholly undermines any claim you make that Exodus overwhelmingly and irrefutably confirms the fact that the days of creation in Genesis were actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today.

I have pointed out before that you NEVER show ANY SOURCE EVER actually DOING an exegetical review of Exodus 20:8-11 SHOWING how the text can easily be bent or wrenched so that it "redefines day mid sentence any time Darwinism needs it to survive the text".[/quote:e9871]
Indeed you have, which is why I keep repeating the question I ask and that you keep avoiding while posting the same old claim to the objective certainty of your interpretation.

Your response is that such objectivity is not needed and the lack of it should not continue to be "noticed".

As is your continued avoidance of this 'easy to read' and understand question.

Secondly you argue that we need to ignore Exodus 20 and go to some other text in Genesis that might be bent a little easier than the one in Exodus 20. I am willing to go there if we can establish that your argument will admit to the "glaringly obvious" when it sees it.

Eh, no, I argue that the understanding of biblical scholars - who I assume to be at least as qualified as you - that the days of Genesis are not actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today impacts on your interpretation of Exodus. If you don't understand this, then you understand nothing.

If your arguments are not even objective and open minded enough to admit to these incredibly obvious points that both Darwinists and YEC Christians see clearly -- where is the "credibility" in your methods to deal with less obvious examples?

Failure to agree with your arguments is not lack of objectivity and absence of open-mindedness. Please pay attention: I am not 'dealing with less obvious examples' of biblical text; I am referring you to the work of biblical scholars whose conclusions about those usages of day in Genesis lead me to conclude that your claim that exegesis of the usage of day in Exodus clearly establishes that the day(s) referred to in the Genesis account of creation must be actual, literal, 24-hour days as we know them today is not sound.

As for your "proof from the dark ages" -- the point in referencing Orthodox Rabbis is for their proven and demonstrated success in the Hebrew language -- NOT for their ability to doubt, discount and ignore the text as their tradition may dictate. For example they teach that Satan is "a good angel". The "objectivity" in my methods is to appeal to their demonstrated strengths that everyone on both sides of the issue can easily and objectively see -- not to blindly resort to any old conlusion they give from tradition and equivocate across all that they say as if that was a "compelling" form of proof for a debated point.

Oh dear, so when they supposedly support your conclusions they can be (anonymously) referenced to back up your arguments, but when they don't they are intellectually worthless. You only demonstrate that your understanding of biblical text is entirely subjective, the analysis that you carry out in some way being more superior and reliable than theirs. Your use of the phrase 'blindly resort to any old con[c]lusion' when referring to the careful work of generations of biblical scholars whose greatest failing is that they fail to agree with your arguments is indeed telling.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -
As for your "proof from the dark ages" -- the point in referencing Orthodox Rabbis is for their proven and demonstrated success in the Hebrew language -- NOT for their ability to doubt, discount and ignore the text as their tradition may dictate. For example they teach that Satan is "a good angel". The "objectivity" in my methods is to appeal to their demonstrated strengths that everyone on both sides of the issue can easily and objectively see -- not to blindly resort to any old conlusion they give from tradition and equivocate across all that they say as if that was a "compelling" form of proof for a debated point.

L.K
Oh dear, so when they supposedly support your conclusions they can be (anonymously) referenced to back up your arguments,

Nope... details details. Does not pay to gloss over them.

I point is that orthodox Jewish rabbis ARE known for something soooo objectively validated that BOTH Darwinists and non-Darwinists admit to it.. Namely their knowledge of the Hebrew language and syntax.

They are ALSO known for doctrinal error - far and wide - to almost every form of Christian denominations known to mankind.

Obviously - I prefer to take that which comes from their strength -- not their weakness.

Again -- just stating the obvious.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

First I highlight the incredibly obvious point that my objective argument is accepted by BOTH Darwinists and YEC Christians -- as confirming evidence to a level of objectivity your argument has yet to attempt.

In this case - that BOTH groups agree to the easy - apparent and obvious language in the Creation text --- the Bible especially as pointed out by Exodus 20:8-11 "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

Then I point to the fact that digging your heels in against this incredibly obvious point is not helping your argument at all.

Bob
If your arguments are not even objective and open minded enough to admit to these incredibly obvious points that both Darwinists and YEC Christians see clearly -- where is the "credibility" in your methods to deal with less obvious examples?

L.K
Failure to agree with your arguments is not lack of objectivity

AGREEING to my argument by BOTH Darwinist AND NON-Darwinist YEC Christian IS showing a level of OBJECTIVITY that your argument has yet to attempt much less master.

Obviously.

L.K
I am not 'dealing with less obvious examples' of biblical text;

To SHOW (rather than repeatedly assert) the level of objectivity in my argument CONFIRMED - you would need the confirming evidence that BOTH YEC Christians and Darwinists argeed to your solution.

They don't.

In fact you don't even come close to that level of confirmation in your arguments.

L.K
I am referring you to the work of biblical scholars whose conclusions about those usages of day in Genesis lead me to conclude that your claim that exegesis of the usage of day in Exodus clearly establishes that the day(s) referred to in the Genesis account of creation must be actual, literal, 24-hour days as we know them today is not sound.

Another fault in your argument -- you admit you show NO source NO author at all doing ANY exegesis of Exodos 20:8-11... AND THEN you claim that my exegesis of it MUST be incorrect based on your own arguing from the VOID of what you ADMIT you have NOT found??!!

As I said before about the rationale behind your "assertion upon assertion" form of argument is astounding -- albeit it devoid of supporting evidence.

In the above you "assume" some exegesis "exists" on Exodus 20:8-11 to support their wild claims and then you ENDORSE that unseen unknown exegsis "sight unseen" simply because it promises to be "more friendly to Darwinism"???

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From Page 11 of this thread ---

Bob notes

You appear in a "backhanded dragging feet" kinda way to admit that neither Moses NOR his readers were thinking "Darwinism" as they all saw the words

"SIX DAYS you shall labor... FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE".

L.K
How could Moses, or anyone else at that time, be supposed to be 'thinking Darwinism'? Most of them probably thought the world was flat and the stars just tiny lights in the sky. Does this mean that whatever they were thinking must ipso facto have been correct?

Bob
Is this the part where you tell us that paying attention to this "inconvenient detail" is a bad idea?

Hint: Exegesis goes to the heart of the intent of the author and the apparent meaning to the reader.

L.K
No, it's the part where I tell you that you presume to know more than you have grounds for knowing.

Bob asks
so that leads to the obvious question -- how would a "non-Darwinist" read this text?
(Since even you just admitted that Moses was not Darwinist or anything close to it)
[quote:62d14]

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

[/quote:62d14]

L.K
Well, that would very much depend on the pre-existing assumptions the 'non-Darwinist' had about the use of language by the writer and the intent behind that use. What did the writer understand? What did the writer intend the expected audience to understand?

Bob said

Fine - provide an example of the non-Darwinist coming up with something besides the obvious meaning in the text as we can all (both Darwinists and Christians) clearly see it?

L.K still on page 11 of this thread

You asked a hypothetical question. I provided you with a hypothetical answer. I do not need to provide you with an example; I only need to show that the possibility of an alternative viewpoint exists. I have already pointed you to examples of 'non-Darwinist' biblical scholars who argue that the creation days are not actual, literal 24-hour days. Why is this so unpalatable to you that you avoid addressing the reasons they have for their conclusions?

Recall that "only YOU" argue for the existence of NON-DARWINISTS that come up witht some rendering of Exodus 20:8-11 that is anything OTHER than the obvious meaning we all SEE it to have (all - as in Darwinists AND YEC Christians agreeing on this point)

For that mythical non-Darwinist blunder - we have only "you" speculating the scenario and arguing that your imagination "alone" is sufficient to establish it as fact -- no "actual case" need be found.

You are obsessed with the existence of these 'non-Darwinist' creatures of your own conjuring.

How odd that not only do YOU conjur them up--- but then you claim it is MY job to prove they do or do not exist and now you switch to the notion that I made UP the idea of these non-Darwinist interpreters that come up with something besides the obvious meaning in Exodus 20:8-11??

Your argument grows weaker and more self-conflicted by the moment.

That an interpretation of text different from yours is offered is not an exercise in imagination, it is an exercise in critical thinking and literary analysis. I can provide such an interpretation of the text myself

Obviously - It would be impossible for YOU to be "the example" of a non-Darwinist doing anything much less coming up with something OTHER than the glaringly obvious meaning for these text -- so obvious that BOTH Darwinists and YEC Christians all admit to SEEING it.

Surely you "get that".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW if you want examples of BENEFICIAL mutations as opposed to examples of increased DNA complexity, that is a different story.

We already are informed about "stories about how one thing came from another... stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" (Colin Patterson)...

Remember?

Bob

Remember the Patterson quotes that you plaster all over this board

Ahhh yes -- I remember them well!

Is this the part where you get around to answering the point above?

Bob

 

[Snidey]

You did not make any point. Are you referring to you taking my use of the common phrase "that is a different story" and twisting it to make it appear as if I was saying I was going to TELL a story, and then, as you tend to, tying this to something Patterson said? Since no one on this board can say something without you somehow trying to make it appear that Patterson's mined quotes are anything more than irrelevant, it's hard to tell what point you think you made.

 

[BobRyan]

First of all as many of the readers not subscribing to daily doses of darwinist pablum have confirmed to me in PM on this board -- the Patterson quotes are READILY apparent as to their "applicability to the topic".

The continual tactic of darwinist devotees to "pretend they don't notice" is not going as well for them as they like to "imagine"!

And now of course we have these videos of the darwinist priests and evangelists being flummoxed as they are caught in their own self-conflicted statements -- much as Patterson's observations would tell us to "expect" from a sytem infested with "anti-knowledge".

The unbiased objective reader will note --

Evols Contradicting their own storytelling;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk


SALIENT points in the Darwinist argument merely ASSUMED but not PROVEN:

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) spoke at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high schoolâ€Â[/b]

(Speech that was not published but transcripts are said to be available) Similar views given by Patterson in “Deducing from Materialism†National Review Aug 29, 1986)

ANTI-KNOWLEDGE

Evolution AS FAITH

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

[quote:dd115]
Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

[/quote:dd115]

And will "enjoy" reading...

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since no one on this board can say something without you somehow trying to make it appear that Patterson's mined quotes are anything more than irrelevant, it's hard to tell what point you think you made.

Easy observation left as an exercise for the objective unbiased readers..

Describe a few reasons why a devoted darwinist disciple clinging to the orthodoxy of his faith in darwinism would hope to find the statement by Patterson below as "irrelevant"?

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

[/quote]

If you need to see darwinist saying "harrumph!" more as they read those statements from Patterson -- I think I can help you with that.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Nope... details details. Does not pay to gloss over them.

I point is that orthodox Jewish rabbis ARE known for something soooo objectively validated that BOTH Darwinists and non-Darwinists admit to it.. Namely their knowledge of the Hebrew language and syntax.

They are ALSO known for doctrinal error - far and wide - to almost every form of Christian denominations known to mankind.

Obviously - I prefer to take that which comes from their strength -- not their weakness.

Again -- just stating the obvious.

As always, very long on assertion, very short on supporting your assertions.

You had earlier claimed that Orthodox Rabbis who accept evolutionary-theory wholly supported your exegesis of Exodus. Despite repeated requests asking you to support this claim, you have avoided doing so. Now you are reduced to claiming that they are really good at understanding the language and syntax of Hebrew, and, I suppose, thereby implying that they wholly endorse your conclusions.

You then presume that their differing doctrine is unquestionably evidence of error and actually parade your cherry-picking of those parts of their scholarship and faith that support your own conclusions (or so you claim) as a virtue.

I find your confident arrogance and dismissive contempt of scholars whose faith differs from your own indicative of the existence of the pre-existing assumptions you bring to your claims of analytical objectivity when considering OT verse. I am sure that they probably consider your doctrine riddled with error as well. What are we to conclude from this? That it is like watching a travelling zoo and a circus squabbling over who is to put on the next show?

 

[lordkalvan]

First I highlight the incredibly obvious point that my objective argument is accepted by BOTH Darwinists and YEC Christians -- as confirming evidence to a level of objectivity your argument has yet to attempt.

In this case - that BOTH groups agree to the easy - apparent and obvious language in the Creation text --- the Bible especially as pointed out by Exodus 20:8-11 "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

Then I point to the fact that digging your heels in against this incredibly obvious point is not helping your argument at all.

This is tiresome. Either substantiate your assertion or stop repeating it.

[quote:e6b82]L.K
Failure to agree with your arguments is not lack of objectivity

AGREEING to my argument by BOTH Darwinist AND NON-Darwinist YEC Christian IS showing a level of OBJECTIVITY that your argument has yet to attempt much less master.

Obviously.[/quote:e6b82]
Those who agree with you are objective, those who don't aren't? Give me a break.

[quote:e6b82]L.K
I am not 'dealing with less obvious examples' of biblical text;

To SHOW (rather than repeatedly assert) the level of objectivity in my argument CONFIRMED - you would need the confirming evidence that BOTH YEC Christians and Darwinists argeed to your solution.

They don't.

In fact you don't even come close to that level of confirmation in your arguments.[/quote:e6b82]
I am now certain that you are paying no attention whatsoever to my arguments and determined only to preach your own narrow, dogmatic viewpoint. I offer no solution, 'Darwinist', 'non-Darwinist', Christian (of any denomination), or any other sort. I point only to the reasons for doubting your own certainty about the Exodus verses and the conclusions that can be drawn from them.

[quote:e6b82]L.K
I am referring you to the work of biblical scholars whose conclusions about those usages of day in Genesis lead me to conclude that your claim that exegesis of the usage of day in Exodus clearly establishes that the day(s) referred to in the Genesis account of creation must be actual, literal, 24-hour days as we know them today is not sound.

Another fault in your argument -- you admit you show NO source NO author at all doing ANY exegesis of Exodos 20:8-11... AND THEN you claim that my exegesis of it MUST be incorrect based on your own arguing from the VOID of what you ADMIT you have NOT found??!![/quote:e6b82]
Pay attention to my arguments, not to how you think they allow you to restate your own position ad infinitum. My point is not dependent upon faulty or otherwise exegesis of the Exodus text - although I indeed question your certainty as to what you conclude from it - it is based on a range of biblical scholarship concerning the creation days of Genesis that undermines the conclusions you draw from your analysis of Exodus. I also see no reason why I should take your unsupported word for the correctness of your conclusions when at least I have given you ample references to biblical scholars to support mine with regard to Genesis. And you have still to show me the grounds for concluding that 'day/yom' cannot be used in the verses you quote both figuratively in the one instance and literally in the other.

As I said before about the rationale behind your "assertion upon assertion" form of argument is astounding -- albeit it devoid of supporting evidence.

I have provided you with ample evidence and reasons for my arguments. That you choose to ignore it or dismiss it by simply repeating your own narrow claim over and over again is your problem, not mine. And your evidence so far consists solely of your own overweening confidence that you are right.

In the above you "assume" some exegesis "exists" on Exodus 20:8-11 to support their wild claims and then you ENDORSE that unseen unknown exegsis "sight unseen" simply because it promises to be "more friendly to Darwinism"???

Rude words tremble on my lips. I assume nothing about Exodus 20:8-11, whereas your entire argument seems to be based on assumption backed up by unsupported assertion.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

You take the words right out of my mouth. Though again I am puzzled by your idiosyncratic use of quotation marks - not to mention those multiple question-marks. Your literary style scarcely inspires confidence in your ability to carry out literary analysis.

 

[lordkalvan]

From Page 11 of this thread ---
......
Bob

I have snipped the entirety of this post simply because it is becoming evident that it is pointless trying to have a discussion with you. Your sole intent is to preach your own point of view and ignore any suggestion that that point of view may be less well-founded than you so confidently proclaim.

As far as I can see, your entire argument reduces to the claim that your exegesis of Exodus 20:8-11 admits of only one conclusion, i.e. that all uses of 'day/yom' are intended with but one meaning - that of an actual, literal 24-hour day - (asserted but not proven) and that therefore the creation days referred to in Genesis are actual, literal 24-hour days (asserted but not proven).

Your reasoning is demonstrably shaky and your ability to think critically apparently non-existent.

 

[BobRyan]

Lot's of assertions -- pile atop of lots more assertions... when do we get to a substantive argument?

Take a point of mine - and show a counter point that is something besides "is not".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As far as I can see, your entire argument reduces to the claim that your exegesis of Exodus 20:8-11 admits of only one conclusion, i.e. that all uses of 'day/yom' are intended with but one meaning - that of an actual, literal 24-hour day

wrong.

And that is the part that is tiresome. It is one thing for us not to agree -- it is another for you after all this time not to even know what the differences are.

I have stated repeatedly that we are taking this "very simply" just one text -- just Exodus 20 -- just trying to get you to admit to "the glaringly obvious" in that ONE case.

This is not a "ALL uses of Yom in all of scripture have only one meaning" from me nor do you have a quote from me claiming that.

Your logical fallacy is of the form "reductio ad absurdum" it is not helping your case to leap from fallacy to fallacy. You need to deal with facts at hand in the case of Ex 20:8-11 instead of casting about you for something that "will stick".

You have shown interest in looking at "other texts" as if they will help you in your escape from Exodus 20:8-11. I too am willing to look at them IF you can first show yourself to be well reasoned and logical with the OBVIOUS example of Exodus 20.. So far you struggle with this most simple of all cases and that causes me to hestitate to follow you on a rabbit trail.

Bob