Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
484 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Taq, vimesey (7 members, 477 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,696 Year: 21,732/19,786 Month: 295/1,834 Week: 295/315 Day: 51/77 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot?
Taq
Member
Posts: 8187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 46 of 80 (511385)
06-09-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
06-09-2009 1:00 PM


slevesque writes:

Historically, there has been one way of interpreting the creation account.
The new ways of interpreting genesis came in the early 1900's when churches started compromising with the scientific facts.

The question is now, why would have God hidden the truth of Genesis for over 1800 years to his church ?

The same types of arguments were used against Galileo and in support of geocentrism. Perhaps you should think that over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2009 1:00 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15615
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 47 of 80 (511386)
06-09-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 3:05 PM


So you can't find anything in the text that clearly points to Southern Turkey or the domestication of wheat either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 3:05 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 3:57 PM PaulK has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 80 (511388)
06-09-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 3:05 PM


There were already plants according to Gen 1, but plants of the field sound like domesticated plants since these plants can't grow without man to tend them according to scientists.

Why invoke science here?

I mean, what's the point to relying on science for some parts but totally ignoring it in others?

Here you say:

We also know that at Adam's time there was no plant of the field because there was no rain and no man to tend them.

Which is totally unscientific, so why even bother with the science in the other part?

You're shooting youself in the foot again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 3:05 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 6:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3864
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 49 of 80 (511395)
06-09-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
06-09-2009 1:00 PM


Actually, if we ignore the advent of heliocentrism then that trend started in the early 1800's as examination of the geological evidence revealed that the earth was vastly older than the prevalent interpretation of the Bible had had us believing and that there was not only no evidence for Noah's Flood, but the evidence indicated against it. That was when theologians started scrambling to find ways either to reconcile their interpretations with the fact or to ignore and to explain away the facts.

What this topic is concerned with is that the choice of ignoring and explaining away the facts is counter-productive, that it in effect has the creationist shooting himself in the foot. Rather, the more productive approach to take is to realize that one's theology is wrong on this particular point and to find some way to correct it.

If science proves this to be wrong, then the Bible is not the word of God, it is the word of faillible men.

So, do you only follow the Bible, or do you in fact follow a theology?

That is almost a trick question, because it is impossible to follow the Bible without creating a theology, a way of interpreting it. So you are actually following a theology, not the Bible itself.

And is a theology "Word of God" or "Word of Man"? "Word of Man", obviously, since it is the fallible efforts of fallible humans to try to study and understand and interpret God. Theology is supposed to include Revelation, but the vastly greater portion of a theology still consists of fallible humans' fallible attempts to understand and to interpret that Revelation. And it can be argued that Revelation is only Revelation to the individual receiving it, because that individual cannot himself transmit that Revelation to others, but only his interpretation of it, a theology.

And when a theology or doctrine is received by a student, then like anything else a person learns that student will misunderstand it or only partially understand it. I trust that you do realize that we all, yourself included, build our own theology. Even though you believe that you adhere to a particular theology, you really only adhere to your incomplete understanding and misunderstanding of your teachers' own incomplete understanding and misunderstanding of their own teachers' incomplete understanding and misunderstanding, etc, of the actual original doctrine (which itself was developed by fallible humans' incomplete understanding and misunderstanding of what they think was Revelation).

The point of all that is that theology is fraught with error and miscomprehension. That doesn't mean that they are completely wrong, but it's inconceivable that any of them could be completely correct. It's like the argument about there being all these different religions and sects, but only one of them can be the right one. I would say that none of them are right, but at the same time all, except for a few, are also right. IOW, the vast majority of religions do have teachings that are correct, but they all get something wrong, especially their details.

In the scientific method of hypothesis forming and testing and refining, we end up with a model that describes the phenomenon in question. But no model is perfect nor complete. So we test it and find where it is in error and we try to correct that error. It's an iterative process that never ends, but it results in models that are highly accurate, albeit not perfect, and in which we can have a high degree of confidence.

So if you find your theology to be in error about something, shouldn't you try to correct it? Finding your theology in error does not diminish God and correcting a misunderstanding on your part should also improve your understanding of God, n'est-ce pas?

Historically, there has been one way of interpreting the creation account.

Well, yes, I guess you could say that since for much of the post-Schism history of Christianity the Catholic Church has dictated what the interpretation had to be, and then the Protestants largely inherited the interpreations of the Catholic Church, which diverged as they began to interpret the Bible for themselves (as we can see in the rapid splintering of the Protestent movement into a multitude of sects). Of course, we haven't heard from the Orthodox churches.

But also, since the vast majority of theologians remained ignorant of the facts, then they had no reason to question or examine the naïve ignorant interpretations that they had been taught.

The new ways of interpreting genesis came in the early 1900's when churches started compromising with the scientific facts.

"compromising with the scientific facts". Are you saying that when your fallible and quite probably erroneous theology makes real-world pronouncements that are contrary-to-fact, then your theology takes precedence over fact? You may believe that you are infallible, but I cannot.

Or another way of looking at it is that God wrote the universe, so those scientific facts are direct observations of "The Word of God" in action. Your theology is "Word of Man". Are you saying that you believe that the "Word of Man" takes precedence over the "Word of God"?

When you try to correct errors in your theology, is that compromising? Or just good sense?

The question is now, why would have God hidden the truth of Genesis for over 1800 years to his church ?

The "Word of God" has always been laid out before us, to read at any time. It wasn't until the rise of science that any but a very few of us had bothered to even try. Instead, they buried their noses in a book which they interpreted through their ignorant theology; that is what had kept the truth of Genesis hidden from them for so long. And there are those who continue to hide the truth from themselves.

I personnally think that every theologian up to the 1900's had the correcte interpretation of genesis.

Hopefully, you've started to think about that.

If science proves this to be wrong, then the Bible is not the word of God, it is the word of faillible men.

I will reveal my signature this time, since it includes a quote from a filk song:

quote:
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

Your theology teaches you that if any part of your theology is wrong, then it is all wrong and must be discarded. Don't you think that maybe that part of your theology is also wrong? That you can indeed detected and correct errors in your theology without having to throw it all away?

It is also your theology that tells you what the Bible is and must be and that you must throw it away if any single part of it proves to not be literally true and infallible. If your theology has be wrong about other details, couldn't it also be wrong about that?

Obviously, the Bible has indeed been written by Man, copied by Man, compiled by Man, editted and redacted by Man, translated by Man, interpreted by Man, taught by Man, read by Man, and misunderstood by Man. So how does that diminish the importance of the Bible to your faith?

The problem for fundamentalists is not science. Rather, their problem is certain parts of their theology which teach them what the world must be like or else their religion is completely false and they might as well be hedonistic atheists -- you can see, they don't understand anything about atheism either. And because their claims about how the world must be are contrary-to-fact, then they end up disproving their own religion. That is how they are shooting themselves in the foot.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2009 1:00 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 80 (511401)
06-09-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
06-09-2009 1:00 PM


quote:
If science proves this to be wrong, then the Bible is not the word of God, it is the word of faillible men.

I think you should believe exactly what I say, except those parts you can specifically disprove. Here goes:
1) There is a giant purple rabbit in your living room.
2) Everyone can breath fire, they just don't know how to. I can though, but I refuse to show you.
3) There is an undetectable wizard everywhere who told me that you should give me all your worldly possessions, and in return he will not destroy you.

You may be able to disprove the first claim, and be extremely skeptical of the second. You cannot disprove the third, so do you believe it? If not, how does this differ from your faith in that *other* undetectable wizard?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2009 1:00 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 51 of 80 (511402)
06-09-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
06-09-2009 3:24 PM


Look on Google earth for Karacadag. It is west of Diyarbakir on the Tigris, and east of Haran on the Balikh, a tributary of the Euphrates. It is in southern Turkey. The Bible clearly states that there was no domestic plants before Adam and he was cultivating and tilling (only associated with domestication) and eating bread (from wheat) after the fall. I have shown both statements

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2009 3:24 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2009 4:20 PM greentwiga has responded
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 4:27 PM greentwiga has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15615
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 52 of 80 (511406)
06-09-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 3:57 PM


Of course you're ignoring the parts that don't fit.

Firstly you insist that the plants referred to are domesticated. That means that wild wheat and wild figs are out. In fact it's really odd to assume that it means domesticated versions of wild plants at all.

Secondly you ignore the fact that the text refers to an absence of rain, giving that as a reason why the plants won;t grow. Therefore you should be looking for an area so dry that crops can ONLY be grown by irrigation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 3:57 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 7:17 PM PaulK has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19042
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 53 of 80 (511410)
06-09-2009 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 3:57 PM


greentwiga writes:

The Bible clearly states that there was no domestic plants before Adam...

So the Bible says exactly what it means in some places, but not in others. How do you tell the difference?

Again, you are combining in your mind two different things. What the Bible actually plainly says is one thing, and we'll call this the literal interpretation. What actually might have happened, the truth behind the myth, so to speak, is another thing, and we'll call these the analytical interpretations.

You're shifting freely back and forth and between two different styles of interpretation to yield conclusions that make sense to no one.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 3:57 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 7:29 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 54 of 80 (511440)
06-09-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
06-09-2009 1:00 PM


Historically, there has been one way of interpreting the creation account.

Bollocks.

Even modern creationists can't agree on one way to interpret either the Bible or the world in front of them.

The new ways of interpreting genesis came in the early 1900's when churches started compromising with the scientific facts.

Actually, the church has been compromising with the scientific facts ever since they found out that the world didn't actually have four corners.

The question is now, why would have God hidden the truth of Genesis for over 1800 years to his church ?

Reality-denial is a modern heresy. It has nothing to do with the traditions of the church.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2009 1:00 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 55 of 80 (511444)
06-09-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2009 3:30 PM


If plant of the field is the ancient way of saying domesticated plants, or plants of the farm field then lets look at domesticated plants. Before about 9,500 BC, there was no domesticated plants and no farmers according to science. There also was a drought for 1,300 years, called the Younger Dryas that according to science was far worse than any experienced in historic times. The statement that there was no plants of the field because there was no rain and no man to cultivate the ground is exactly what scientists say. What is unscientific about that? When I look for four rivers, I invoke the science of Geography. When I look for a volcano, I use the science of vulcanology. When I look for good gold and other minerals, I look to the science of geology. When I look for Eden and Haran, I look to history. When I look for wild wheat and wild figs, I look to biology. When I look for the rainfall amounts, I access the science of meteorology. When I look at the domestication of wheat and of sheep (Abel kept flocks), I use the science of Anthropology. I have tried to explain that I have tried to keep scientifically accurate when the Bible references something. If you have questions about the science of any other statements of mine, feel free to ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 06-09-2009 10:40 PM greentwiga has responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 56 of 80 (511447)
06-09-2009 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
06-09-2009 4:20 PM


It never mentions trees of the field just plants and shrubs, so that would allow us to look at wild figs. Further, and the start, there is no domestic plants but there are wild plants (Gen 1), and by Gen 4:2 Cain was tilling fields. At the start, there was wild wheat and at the end there was domestic wheat. Therefore, one can look at both wild and domestic. If Gen 2 is all plants, then Plants are created before man in Gen 1 and after man in Gen 2, the Bible contradicts itself. If it is only domesticated plants that are created after man, then there is no internal contradiction and also agreement with science.
As for no rain, Scientists discusses how people were harvest crops around 11,000 BC, but then the Younger Dryas hit. In the Middle East it was a drought of 1,300 years and far worse than any in historic times. There would have been years with no rain at all. I just hadn't had occasion to mention it. It is at my website: http://sites.google.com/site/gardenineden/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2009 4:20 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2009 1:39 AM greentwiga has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 57 of 80 (511451)
06-09-2009 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
06-09-2009 4:27 PM


I understand the Bible to be the word of God. If there is a contradiction between two passages, I look to see if there is another valid interpretation. I just wrote about the contradiction if plants are created twice. Sometimes it does take careful analysis of all the relevant Biblical passages. What may have been clear truth to the ancient writers may be misunderstood by us. That is when I look at the various ways the ancient writer used a term. With the term, "Of the field" it is sometimes contrasted with wild. Some verses use wild beasts and then beasts of the field, clearly meaning the farm animals. Yes, sometimes one has to be analytical, but the meanings show up with careful study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 4:27 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 06-09-2009 10:51 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6877
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 58 of 80 (511469)
06-09-2009 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 6:54 PM


Before about 9,500 BC, there was no domesticated plants and no farmers according to science. There also was a drought for 1,300 years, called the Younger Dryas that according to science was far worse than any experienced in historic times.

This is simplistic to an extreme. Yes the levant experienced droughts during this period but to say there was a 1,300 year drought is a bit of an exaggeration. If anything this led to the beginning of agriculture it did not prevent the beginning of agriculture.

The statement that there was no plants of the field because there was no rain and no man to cultivate the ground is exactly what scientists say.

Who says this? Show me.

Here is a real quick 2 min search for some info on the subject.

quote:
The Younger Dryas is often linked to the adoption of agriculture in the Levant. It is argued that the cold and dry Younger Dryas lowered the carrying capacity of the area and forced the sedentary Early Natufian population into a more mobile subsistence pattern. Further climatic deterioration is thought to have brought about cereal cultivation. While there exists relative consensus regarding the role of the Younger Dryas in the changing subsistence patterns during the Natufian, its connection to the beginning of agriculture at the end of the period is still being debated.

Source

So quit trying to baffle with BS.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 6:54 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2009 12:10 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 59 of 80 (511470)
06-09-2009 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 7:29 PM


I understand the Bible to be the word of God.

Which God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 7:29 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 60 of 80 (511478)
06-10-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Theodoric
06-09-2009 10:40 PM


Here is one statement on the younger Dryas and Agriculture
and another on the location of the first domestication
There is nothing in the Bible to say Adam was not during the drought instead of immediately after. I am willing to be wrong on that point.
Cayonu is immediately to the north of Karacadag while Abu Hureyra in Syria is close to the SW of Karacadag. Heun et al put the domestication at Karacadag and they say about 8,000 BC. Yes there is some debate about exactly when and where, but If I say 9,000 and it was 8,000 or 10,000 BC, I still gave a good approximation. The locations suggested are never far from Karacadag. Some years ago, a strong case was made for Israel, but the scientists are rejecting that as one of the articles mentions.
A dry death
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/489449.stm
Professor Hillman and his team found that, as they looked through the archaeological record, the wild seed varieties gathered as food gradually vanished, before the cultivated varieties appeared. Those wild seeds most dependent on water were the first to die out, followed one by one by the more hardy ones.

This was a clue to why the hunter-gatherer people turned to cultivating some of the foods they had previously collected from the wild, and prompted Professor Hillman to look at independent climate records for the period.

What he found was evidence for a terrible drought: “It was very sharp and would certainly have been felt within a human lifetime, perhaps even in the space of 10 or so years.”

Geologist call this period the Younger Dryas, a 1000-year spell of cold and dry weather with interrupted the planet’s gradual warming from the last ice age.

Cayonu Tepesi

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/cayonu.html

The site of Cayonu Tepesi is located in Eastern Anatolia, which is present day Turkey. The exact location is near the northern arc of the Fertile Crescent in the Taurus Mountains foothills intermediate between Levant and Zagros on the Ergani Plain. This is the earliest Neolithic settlement discovered to date in Turkey and is believed to have been occupied from approximately 7,250 BCE to 6,750 BCE. At the time of habitation, this location was surrounded by steppe forests of oak and pistachio trees. This was a sedentary farming village which showed the earliest remains of copper metalworking. The Cayonu settlement is located not far from the city of Diyarbakir and was excavated between 1964 and 1991 by expedition teams under the leadership of Cambel, Braidwood, Mehmet Ozdogan and Wulf Schirmen. The anthropologist who receives the most credit for the excavation of Cayonu is Robert Braidwood, who also excavated other sites in the Middle East. This site is important because of it’s Neolithic age and the fact that it spanned a time when humans moved from hunting and gathering to more domestication of animals and plants.
The people of Cayonu are believed to be tribal and were the first farmers of Anatolia. The figurine of a female deity was found on this site and provides sound evidence that religion was an important aspect of everyday life. This female deity is one of the earliest traces of a cult that has come to be known as the Mother Goddess of Anatolia and the female deity has been worshiped for millenniums by the name of “Cybele.” The burial practices of the settlement also indicate different burial practices including interment under the house floors with special orientation differences between male and female members. Jewelry such as bone belt buckles and necklaces of stone or shell beads have been found with some of the burials. The village was dependent on wild and domesticated plants, especially wheat and barley and some hunting of large numbers of deer and aurochs. Cayonu was one of the first areas where domestication of goats and sheep occurred although a number of anthropologists believe that sheep were consistently more common than goats. It is also believed that the dog was the very first domesticated animal in the village followed by pigs, then goats and sheep.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 06-09-2009 10:40 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 1:17 AM greentwiga has responded
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 06-10-2009 3:44 PM greentwiga has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019