Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Coragyps · 03-30-2002, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Maybe cycads preferred the lower elevation swamps.

D'oh! Lower elevation swamps! Why didn't I think of that?
"First floor swamps! Cycads, seymouria!
....
Fourth floor swamps! Cypress, muskrats, Cajuns!"
....

Get real.

lpetrich · 03-30-2002, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Ed:
Hardly. Given that the mutations may have been delivered by viruses it is more like a heat seeking missile programmed to strike anything within a certain temperature range.

How do mutations get delivered by viruses? Genes, yes. Mutations, no.

And why would a virus insert itself into exactly the same place in different genomes? That asks too much of coincidence.

Quote:

Ed:
Hello Cora. Maybe cycads preferred the lower elevation swamps.

Ed grasps at straws. Present-day cycads don't have such a preference.

Quote:

Ed:
Depending on which Flood theory you accept, maybe the flood occurred early in the Cretaceous before they became dominant.

Thus taking place long before humanity had existed.

I've noticed that Ed seems to lack any real conception of geological time; that may explain why he makes such loose statements.

Duck! · 03-30-2002, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:


Depending on which Flood theory you accept, maybe the flood occurred early in the Cretaceous before they became dominant.

Aren't you YEC? Surely that means that you don't even accept that the Cretaceous period (144-65 mya) even existed! And even if you abandon YEC, you're surely not suggesting that Noah lived over 65 mya?

Duck!

GunnerJ · 03-30-2002, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Aren't you YEC?

Depends. When it's convenient for him to be YEC, he is, but when backed into a corner, he flees up the ID/OEC rope, and then bunkers down in the fortress of theistic evolution. Really, Ed's actual opinion on any given subject varies depending on what attack you use."Shifting the goalposts" is an understatement.

Ed · 03-30-2002, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

Ed:
... No, of all the stories of the flood, only the biblical one seems the most plausible. ...
lp:
I wonder for what reason. Because it's in the Bible?
Ed:
No, because the style is much more realistic and not so fantastical as the mythological versions of the flood story.

lp: And how did you figure that out, Ed? Be specific; give details.[/b]

I have read the Epic of Gilgemesh for one and the biblical account reads much more realistically.

Quote:

LP on Revelation 7 and the angels holding back the winds;
Ed:
While I am not sure exactly what verse you are referring to, the purpose of Revelation was not to teach meteorology. God had greater purposes in mind.
lp:
Where is the disclaimer to that effect in that book?
Ed:
It is rather obvious from the context.

lp: Not to me. If one insists that Noah's Flood is literal history, why not the angel-controlled winds and the Earth's four-cornered shape.

Well for one it is in apocalyptic literature and such literature is almost totally symbolic. Also the phrase "four corners of the earth" is a common phrase used in languages and cultures all through history to mean all regions of the earth.

Quote:

Ed:
Mainstream geologists are required to adhere to an unwritten assent to the fatally flawed philosophy of Naturalism.
lp:
How is that the case, Ed? And how is it "fatally flawed"?
Ed:
Any hint of some supernatural event immediately throws you out of the academic "club".

lp: And how is that supposed to be happening?

You are immediately labeled a fundamentalist and marginalized.

Quote:

Ed:
Naturalism has no rational basis for believing that what we observe is what is really there, ie subject-object correlation.

lp: What's "subject-object correlation"? I don't understand your statement.

Subject-object correlation is that there is a correlation between what you see and observe and what is really there. Do you think there is a correlation? If so, how do you know there is a correlation and on basis do think there is this correlation?

Quote:

lp:
And Ed, what would cause you to reject Flood Geology?
Ed:
If I could be convinced by the biblical data that the flood was local.

lp: That, and only that?

Yes.

Quote:

Ed:
Because if you back into the past before you were born then you would both be and not be.

lp: That's no contradiction. Consider a related case, that of visiting yourself when you were a little kid. Your doing so means that your personal timeline has reversed direction for a part of your life, meaning that there is a "young you" and an "old you" side by side.

If you only go back into your own past then that theoretically may be possible and would not be logically impossible. But you would not be able to go back before you were born.

Quote:

LP:
(I lost patience when it came to the question of the Midianite Comfort Women.)
Ed:
Why?
lp:
Because I don't have superhuman endurance; also, I have serious problems with anyone who insists on defending that atrocity.
Ed:
While it may offend our Christ influenced modern western society it hardly qualifies as an atrocity when understood in its historical context.

lp: WHAT "historical context"? The Bible doesn't point out which parts are valid for all time and which parts are not.

Not explicitly, but it is implied. At the time of Moses the goal of believers was to establish a theocracy but after Christ, the goal of believers is to "make disciples of all nations". Some parts in the OT only apply to the theocracy such as how to handle captured women from conquered nations. It is determined by grammatico-historical hermeneutics.

[b]

Quote:

lp: Also, if I had to classify the Gospels, I'd call them "hagiography".
Ed:
Who would you rather have write your biography, your family and friends who know you best or some stranger whom you have never met?

lp: If the stranger was a good reporter, I would not object.

Thats the point, you wouldn't know if he was a good reporter, he's a stranger. So wouldn't you rather take your chances with people who know you best like family and friends.

lpetrich · 03-31-2002, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Ed:
... No, of all the stories of the flood, only the biblical one seems the most plausible. ...

... because the style is much more realistic and not so fantastical as the mythological versions of the flood story.

I have read the Epic of Gilgemesh for one and the biblical account reads much more realistically.

Getting Ed to answer critical questions can be like pulling teeth. But I fail to see how the Biblical version is much more "realistic" than the Gilgamesh version. Could it be that Ed rejects the existence of the deities of ancient Babylon, and that this rejection colors his judgment of the Gilgamesh version's amout of realism?

Quote:

LP on Revelation 7 and the angels holding back the winds;
Ed:
Well for one it is in apocalyptic literature and such literature is almost totally symbolic. Also the phrase "four corners of the earth" is a common phrase used in languages and cultures all through history to mean all regions of the earth.

Evidence for that contention? However, "four corners of the Earth" is meant literally here, because we are told that there is an angel at each corner holding back a wind. The verses are Revelation 7:1-2.

Quote:

Ed:
Mainstream geologists are required to adhere to an unwritten assent to the fatally flawed philosophy of Naturalism.

Any hint of some supernatural event immediately throws you out of the academic "club".

You are immediately labeled a fundamentalist and marginalized.

Cry me a river, Ed, about how persecuted your favorite people are. There is a good reason to avoid using the "Goddidit" hypothesis. This is because "Goddidit" can explain anything, and therefore really nothing. Unless one can demonstrate that there are some phenomena that "Goddidit" can not possibly explain.

Quote:

Ed:
Subject-object correlation is that there is a correlation between what you see and observe and what is really there. Do you think there is a correlation? If so, how do you know there is a correlation and on basis do think there is this correlation?

I accept that my perceptions are perceptions of an external world because these perceptions have patterns that are independent of my thoughts.

Quote:

lp:
And Ed, what would cause you to reject Flood Geology?
Ed:
If I could be convinced by the biblical data that the flood was local.
lp: That, and only that?
Ed:
Yes.

Ed, I must honor you for being so honest.

Quote:

Ed:
If you only go back into your own past then that theoretically may be possible and would not be logically impossible. But you would not be able to go back before you were born.

So there is some temporal brick wall at one's birth or conception?

Quote:

(the Midianite Comfort Women...)
Ed:
While it may offend our Christ influenced modern western society it hardly qualifies as an atrocity when understood in its historical context.

lp: WHAT "historical context"? The Bible doesn't point out which parts are valid for all time and which parts are not.
Ed:
Not explicitly, but it is implied. At the time of Moses the goal of believers was to establish a theocracy but after Christ, the goal of believers is to "make disciples of all nations". Some parts in the OT only apply to the theocracy such as how to handle captured women from conquered nations. It is determined by grammatico-historical hermeneutics.

Seems like the Bible is written in a very defective fashion -- it is supposedly the world's perfect textbook, but one has to go through all this trouble and contortion to interpret it.

Also, this answer might best be called "moral relativism". That's right, moral relativism.

Quote:

lp: Also, if I had to classify the Gospels, I'd call them "hagiography".
Ed:
Who would you rather have write your biography, your family and friends who know you best or some stranger whom you have never met?

lp: If the stranger was a good reporter, I would not object.
Ed:
Thats the point, you wouldn't know if he was a good reporter, he's a stranger. So wouldn't you rather take your chances with people who know you best like family and friends.

I could see some examples of that reporter's work, and I could find out how competent that reporter is considered by those familiar with his/her work.

Ed · 03-31-2002, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
Ed:

Decisions about what parts of the Bible are "allegorical" are based on one criterion, and one criterion only. Something becomes "allegorical" when scientists, historians or archaeologists successfully demonstrate that yet another part of the Bible is false.[/b]

Maybe for those that don't take its authority seriously. But for scholars that take scripture's authority seriously they use grammatico-historical hermeneutics to determine which parts of the text are allegorical irregardless of scientific findings. But of course since nature and history is also part of God's revelation, knowledge from them can be used to help us understand and interpret his written revelation.

[b]

Quote:

jack: When this happens, Christian scholars look for some sort of distinguishing feature of the prose, which they then insist is a sign of an "allegorical style".

According to many modern Christians, the Genesis creation story and the Noachian Flood are both allegorical. The prose style "clearly indicates this".

While Genesis 1 has some characteristics of allegory, the account of the flood is obviously historical narrative and any biblical scholar worth his salt would say so.

Ed · 03-31-2002, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:

Originally posted by Ed:

Hello Rufus. The size and shape of the cranium, the size and shape of the temple bone, and the amount of protrusion of the jaw.

RA: Can you provide a little more detail? As in what types of shapes and sizes were you looking for, etc.?

Thanx.

-RvFvS

Humans usually have relatively larger craniums and higher foreheads. And the temple foramin is usually smaller in humans. The jaws do not protrude as much in humans as compared to apes.

lpetrich · 03-31-2002, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Ed:
... But for scholars that take scripture's authority seriously they use grammatico-historical hermeneutics to determine which parts of the text are allegorical irregardless of scientific findings. ...

And what is "grammatico-historical hermeneutics"?

Quote:

Ed:
While Genesis 1 has some characteristics of allegory, the account of the flood is obviously historical narrative and any biblical scholar worth his salt would say so.

And how is that the case? Be specific.

GunnerJ · 04-01-2002, 06:16 AM

Quote:

And how is that the case? Be specific

You may as well ask an ameoba to take a definate shape.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.