Skip to comments.Phony Theory, False Conflict
Posted on 11/17/2005 9:25:39 PM PST by raj bhatia
click here to read article
"the blue gills they examined in the beautiful clear water lakes of Wisconsin were all still fish."
Do you know what a species IS?
Read about evolution before attacking it. You have no clue how it works. It occurs over millions of years; no one says a dog will come out of a cat.
Sheesh! Haven't we been through this before?
"However, I don't see reason to interpret the account in Genesis figuratively."
The fact that virtually all scientists believe in evolution isn't a reason?
It looks like from Theo's original quote that he uses the English Standard Version. Here's Gen 2:17 from that one:
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[a] of it you shall surely die."
Be aware that the [a] footnote in this version offers up 'when you eat' in place of 'in the day that you eat', apparently because someone took it upon themselves to edit God's word to remove the problem of a literal day reference.
You are implying, I am inferring that you don't think I do. I thought I did, but would appreciate your definition. Am I using an incorrect term?
If you're talking about Gen 2:17, when God says Adam will surely die the moment he eats from the tree of good and evil, God couldn't possibly be referring to a literal death, because Adam doesn't literally die that moment. Indeed, later in the Bible people are referred to as descendants of Adam.
That point is a bit difficult to refute. I see that it hasn't been.
No, they haven't (at least none that I have seen).
But it is a oft-repeated statement.
We could go around and around with this verse. Yes, on the day that Adam ate the fruit and sinned against God, God doomed Adam to die. I would argue that if he hadn't sinned, he would not have died.
But let me ask just a few questions, to help get us out of this loop:
1) Do you believe Adam and Eve would have died if they hadn't sinned?
2) How do you interpret Romans 5:15-21, which clearly states that "the many died by the trespass of the one man" and that "by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man" and "sin reigned in death"?
3) And how do you interpret Romans 8:18-22, which speaks of a bondage to decay brought about by the Fall?
4) In light of Romans 6:23, would you say that death is *not* the consequence of sin? Yes, "spiritual" death, but also "physical" death. Death.
You're saying the translators of the ESV are intentionally mistranslating here? They're "editing God's word"?
Great examples of how "day" is not necessarily literal in Genesis.
Note that Black felt the need to add words to the verse. He wrote that "Adam will surely die the moment he eats from the tree...." The Bible doesn't include the words "the moment."
The creationist types demand that either unproven theory not be taught or theories with bholes and gaps not be taught. But if they understood what they are thinking, they would realize that their arguements leads to a scientific dead end.
Aside from arguing the nuances of Law vs. Theory, the important point is that most people, especially the creationist types, just can't or won't get their heads around the basic concept of theory. And I can tell by many of your previous posts, that it drives you just as crazy as other people here on FR who know the important context of what is a scientific theory.
Simon Conway Morris is both. See for example about 1/4 the way down
In an essay entitled, Agreeing Only to Disagree on Gods Place in Science, George Johnson reports from a Templeton Foundation seminar on science and religion in Cambridge. There, Dawkins, a featured speaker, had a heated exchange with Simon Conway Morris, a Christian paleontologist.
Seems the two scientists started off pleasantly enough. They agreed, Johnson writes, that the richness of the biosphere, humanity included, could be explained through natural selection. They also agreed that evolution is not a crapshootthat if the earths history could be redone the result might differ slightly, but certain physical constraints would favor the eventual appearance of warm-blooded creatures something like us, with eyes, ears, noses and brains.
But thats where they forked in orthogonal directions. For Conway Morris, natures ability to produce moral creatures, humans, indicates that God must have orchestrated evolution. Dawkins doesnt buy it, and he asked Conway Morris why, if they could agree on everything else, he has to add God to the picture. From a scientific perspective, Dawkins said, Conway Morriss God was gratuitous.
Ouch. Dawkins remark apparently left Conway Morris momentarily flummoxed, as he muttered to himself. Dawkins, Johnson writes, had scored a crucial point.
Conway Morris is one of the world's experts on the Burgess Shale.
A couple of weeks ago I bypothesized that the anti-evos were really agents of the D*m*cr*t* party, or George Soros, or suchlike, salting FR with juicy quotes to be mined later.
*Dhimmicrat may be a better euphemism.
For what it's worth, I tend to reference the King James Version when making scriptural analysis, since that is the version I used during my formal studies. I find it helpful to share that info so whomever I am talking to doesn't have to guess. Hopefully I was correct in attributing your quote to the English Standard Version.
"Evening and morning" placemark
The presence of the footnote indicates a revised interpretation by someone involved with that version. While I cannot speak with authority as to their motive, it is self evident that someone did indeed 'edit God's Word', and this was acceptable enough to the recipients of this particular version that the footnote still stands. I do acknowledge that my inference that it was done to alleviate confusion regarding the literalness of a biblical 'day' is merely my own opinion.
Note that BackInBlack clarified in his post #149 that he got that word usage from the New American Version. Considering that Theo hadn't bothered to cite the version he was working with, one can hardly fault BackInBlack for relying on the version of his choice.
I am saying what others have said: fish is not a single species; therefore, your point didn't make much sense.
In fact, that IS what 'punctuated equilibrium' says occurs. Many significant changes occuring in very short periods of time (and therefore the reason no transitional forms are found).
"We could go around and around with this verse. Yes, on the day that Adam ate the fruit and sinned against God, God doomed Adam to die."
The only reason we're going around and around is that you have no faith in God's word. You lionize your own instincts instead of trusting what God plainly says. That is hubris, not Christianity. The verse does not say God will doom him to death on that day; it says Adam will die on that day. You are simply wrong, and on some level you know that, because anyone who can read knows what that verse says.
"Do you believe Adam and Eve would have died if they hadn't sinned?"
They would have died physically, of course, but would not have suffered the spiritual death of separation from God.
"How do you interpret Romans 5:15-21, which clearly states that 'the many died by the trespass of the one man' and that 'by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man' and 'sin reigned in death'?"
It means because of Adam's separation from God, his descendants, too, are separated from God (though they have the ability to get closer and closer through Christ). When it says "sin reigned in death," it again could not be talking about literal death, because simply dying is not a sin. Sins are things we do when we're alive. So for sin to reign in "death," we must be literally living, but spiritually separated from God.
"And how do you interpret Romans 8:18-22, which speaks of a bondage to decay brought about by the Fall?"
Same as above.
Did you not see my translations? The New American version specifically DID have the word moment. Why do you hate God's Word?
Evolutionists are not all on the same page when discussing evolutionary theory.
I was quoting someone else there. I agree with you.
Based on the impressions you have formed about me over the course of our discussions, would you be shocked to hear that I am in the Punctuated Equilibrium camp?
That's an excellent interpretation I hadn't heard before. Thank you!
Thanks for clarification but I'm still confused. The point I was trying to make was that blue gills in different lakes in Wisconsin [or even Minnesota where I live] are still in the same kingdom phylum, genus, class, order, genus, species are they not? Where did I go wrong? Okay, okay, I'll go back and read the full article.
I understand some have defined speciation as members of the same classification that cannot interbreed, such as a chihuahua and a great dane. Is this your definition as well?
Yes, ability to interbreed is my, and the, definition.
What does punctuated equilibrium consider to be a 'very short period of time'? And why is it then that the wealth of transitional fossils from the Montana site seem to be created during a period of punctuated equilibrium during the late Cretaceous if punctuated equilibrium is being used as a reason as to why they don't exist?
You guys are the ones who have the theory that says life arose from non-life on its own; that all life comes from a common ancestor, and that higher order species evolved from lower order forms of life. I've never seen any of that occur. What is observable is that animals are able to adapt to their environments, but they still are the same animals. Dogs in cold weather have different body and hair than dogs in warm climates, but they still are dogs, they don't 'evolve' or bring forth offspring that aren't dogs.
So what you're really telling me is that over time you may get (and actually you would need TWO dogs on each island, male and female for your example) dogs that do not resemble the original dogs. You also assume they aren't purebreds, and you also assume they are not already adapted to their current environment. Given all of this, let's say they do adapt nad variations occur over time, and certain features become more prominent and certain things become less prominent. You still haven't added any NEW information. More fur, a smaller muzzle, longer legs is not evidence of evolution, but variation. Where is the new genetic information? It's just a modification of genetic information that was already present. Adaption doesn't create a dog with a beak, it may create a dog with different features than its predecessor - but it's still a dog, and will always be a dog.
"The fact that virtually all scientists believe in evolution isn't a reason?"
Only if majority opinion determines truth, but I think you would agree that historically that hasn't always been the case. There are some fascinating books and articles that challenge the assumption that evolution is capable of explaining the variety of life we find on this plant.
Mr. Morris is presumptious in two areas, I believe. One, his personal notion that he is a Christian who can believe in evolution; two, that evolution is factual, hence God created it.
Mr. Morris seems to believe that God did not create us, but rather that He created an apparatus called evolution that would only later create us as we are today. It is beliefs like this that dilute the Christian faith. Since truth cannot be diluted and still remain truth, these people are no more Christians than a drop of water placed into the ocean remains a drop of water. Darwinism is a faith-stealer which amounts to the parable of the birds "that devoured the seeds" of (Christian) faith before they had a chance to take root and grow. (Mathew 13:4).
(If Morris' God is the God of Christianity), then he should be reminded that Christians believe in the holy Scriptures, aka "the Bible". To reconcile his personal views on darwinsim/evolution, he has to either re-write the Bible or reinterpret it to suit his personal/prideful needs. The true Chrisitan faith still, and always will, teach that Adam was made immediately, from the slime of the earth; and that Adam was the first man, was one man, and that all men are his descendents.
It's too bad, really. I did enjoy the illusion that I was conversing with someone other than a talking point mouthpiece.
Got about the same reaction, too...
The poster in question has a dictionary on a shelf gathering a thick layer of dust because of the highly-evolved trait of clairvoyance. No need for references in this individual's case...just gaze into a crystal ball for the answers.
Not majority opinion -- consensus opinion. There are always a few stragglers who pretend to be scientists and disagree -- just like there are still flat earth people out there. But when the consensus is so overwhelming, those folks don't count.
(By the way, if the Bible is really to be taken literally, we would have to conclude that the world is flat. See this: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)
"I did enjoy the illusion that I was conversing with someone other than a talking point mouthpiece."
Beautifully put. You are a good writer!
Good explanation. Thanks!
No Problem :)
Punctuated equilibrium happens over hundreds of thousands of years. Quick compared to geological time, but not as fast as a single generation.
This proliferation of ignorance, self-righteous, anti-science fools is going to reduce FR to a meaningless internet clowntown.
And it may destroy the current majority conservative coalition. The religious fanatics may well put the DIMs back in power.
IMO, nothing will turn voters, even religious voters, to the DIMs like the thought that religious theocratic fanatics might significantly influence Republican policies. IMHO, the majority of religious voters in the US are of the 'you worship your way and I'll worship mine and we should leave each other alone' variety.
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.