RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Ya want some fun?, Dr. GH debates AIG< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,17:13   

I have entered into an online debate with Answers in Genesis.

http://www.opposingviews.com/questio....ix-days

Chime in any time.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,17:29   

Are they really even trying? I've read only a few of their arguments and all they've got so far is circular reasoning and bible passages.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,17:52   

Nothing (new) to see here, just move along folks ;)
I don't think it can ever get juicy with those AiG guys anymore. But I still hold hope, so I'll keep this topic in my sights.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,17:53   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 13 2008,17:29)
Are they really even trying? I've read only a few of their arguments and all they've got so far is circular reasoning and bible passages.

Wouldn't it be disingenuous for Answers in Genesis to NOT use Bible verses?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,18:05   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 13 2008,15:29)
Are they really even trying? I've read only a few of their arguments and all they've got so far is circular reasoning and bible passages.

When PZ Myers was in L.A. recently, I pressed the argument that science per se cannot dissuade anyone from religion. In fact, that is not how Thomas Huxley formed the argument for agnostism.

The only path to atheism is through a careful study of scripture.



--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,20:41   

jesus gary that is like kicking oompa-loompas.  look forward to seeing your thread closed soon.  take no prisoners!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,22:32   

I dropped a few comments in, including one for you!

The New York Times had a headline on an article many years ago, "In the Land of Jesus, His Language Is Dying Out". The article was about Aramaic and how it's use was persecuted by the Syrian government. The rabbi I was studying with at the time thought the headline was quite amusing. He said that if the Times reporter was afraid Aramaic was dying as a spoken language,he could put him in contact with 10,000 guys in Brooklyn who spoke it every day. Since Aramaic is the language of the Talmud, he was being conservative in his estimate!

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,09:20   

The languages I was refering to were Akkadian, Ugaritic and Phoenician. But for that matter, bronze age biblical Hebrew is far different from modern Hebrew.  There are many examples of wordplay in the Bible which does make it possible to imagine the pronunciations. If your rabbi thinks he speaks the same language as David or Moses, he is dreaming.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,10:19   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,10:20)
The languages I was refering to were Akkadian, Ugaritic and Phoenician. But for that matter, bronze age biblical Hebrew is far different from modern Hebrew. There are many examples of wordplay in the Bible which does make it possible to imagine the pronunciations. If your rabbi thinks he speaks the same language as David or Moses, he is dreaming.

Where do those languages appear in Genesis, other than place names?

I know that I don't speak the same language as Chaucer, and barely the same language as Shakespeare. While the vocabulary of modern Hebrew is much larger than what appears in the Bible, I'm not sure what you think has changed so much about Hebrew that my rabbi is dreaming. Orthography? Agreed. Phonology? Grammar? Shoresh and binyan?

The discrepancies of biblical and "modern" Hebrew are the subject of thousands of years of minute study. I'd guess most orthodox rabbis are very aware of where there is evidence of a change in the language.

But perhaps you are arguing that even the text of the Bible does not capture the language of 3-4,000 years ago, but dates from a later era. David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,10:44   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 14 2008,10:19)
[quote=Dr.GH,Oct. 14 2008,10:20] David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

Moses - definitely.

David - quite probably.

Does that help?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,11:16   

Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 14 2008,11:44)
[quote=dvunkannon,Oct. 14 2008,10:19]
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,10:20)
David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

Moses - definitely.

David - quite probably.

Does that help?

Only if that is what Dr Hurd meant!

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:44   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 14 2008,08:19)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,10:20)
The languages I was refering to were Akkadian, Ugaritic and Phoenician. But for that matter, bronze age biblical Hebrew is far different from modern Hebrew. There are many examples of wordplay in the Bible which does make it possible to imagine the pronunciations. If your rabbi thinks he speaks the same language as David or Moses, he is dreaming.

Where do those languages appear in Genesis, other than place names?

I know that I don't speak the same language as Chaucer, and barely the same language as Shakespeare. While the vocabulary of modern Hebrew is much larger than what appears in the Bible, I'm not sure what you think has changed so much about Hebrew that my rabbi is dreaming. Orthography? Agreed. Phonology? Grammar? Shoresh and binyan?

The discrepancies of biblical and "modern" Hebrew are the subject of thousands of years of minute study. I'd guess most orthodox rabbis are very aware of where there is evidence of a change in the language.

But perhaps you are arguing that even the text of the Bible does not capture the language of 3-4,000 years ago, but dates from a later era. David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

The major features of Exodus never happened. For the entire patriarchal and most of the pre-exilic period Yahweh was one of a number of gods. The bloody battles in Exodus, as well as 1st and 2nd Kings were the result of conflicts between the different cults. There was a long period during which the Pentateuch was essentially unknown to the Hebrews. This is particuarly clear in 2 Kings 22:8 through 23:3.

As far as linguistics goes, there are many loan words and cognates between all of the Western Semitic languages. The mythic conventions of Ugarit preceded the Bible and established the basic structure.

ETA: Sorry, I was interupted for a momment.

Some very good books you might find helpful are:

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel." Boston: Harvard University Press

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 "Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised" Oxford: Oxford University Press

Smith, Mark S.
2002 典he Early History of God" 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing
_
2003 典he Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts Oxford University Press.

The work by F. M. Cross is probably the most frequently cited text in the field.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 14 2008,13:05

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,15:17   

I hope this quote from "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy is brief enough that I may use it:

"Mystical Jews understood the Exodus as an allegory of spiritual initiation. The Jewish people start off as "captives" in Egypt, are "called out of Egypt" by Moses, and are finally led as the " chosen people" to the promised land by the prophet Joshua. Here then are the three stages of initiation we have already found in both Gnosticism and the Pagan Mysteries: the initiate is first a "captive" (a Hylic), then is baptized to become one of the "called" (a Psychic) and finally is initiated to become one of the "chosen" (a Pneumatic). Someone was regarded as "captive" while identified with his body and blind to his true spiritual identity. Egypt was seen as a metaphor for the body and to "come forth out of Egypt" was seen as symbolizing transcending identification with the body. The miraculous crossing of the Red Sea was understood as a metaphor for baptism by water. A baptized initiate was regarded as one of those "called" to make the spiritual journey."

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself 窶 and you are the easiest person to fool.
ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ ツ         Richard Feynman

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,15:32   

I honestly can't even fathom how someone can read AiG's posts and think "yes, I agree with these statements."  Even if you are the most fervent biblical literalist, the circular reasoning in their statements cannot possibly go unnoticed.  I feel bad for these people, and even worse for their children.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,16:05   

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 14 2008,15:32)
I honestly can't even fathom how someone can read AiG's posts and think "yes, I agree with these statements." Even if you are the most fervent biblical literalist, the circular reasoning in their statements cannot possibly go unnoticed. I feel bad for these people, and even worse for their children.

well, i am sure we will see quite a few of those kids here or somewhere similar after the scales are lifted*.  it happens to a non-trivial fraction of the deluded.

*unless we all get raptured or something like that of course.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,16:31   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,15:44)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 14 2008,08:19)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,10:20)
The languages I was refering to were Akkadian, Ugaritic and Phoenician. But for that matter, bronze age biblical Hebrew is far different from modern Hebrew. There are many examples of wordplay in the Bible which does make it possible to imagine the pronunciations. If your rabbi thinks he speaks the same language as David or Moses, he is dreaming.

Where do those languages appear in Genesis, other than place names?

I know that I don't speak the same language as Chaucer, and barely the same language as Shakespeare. While the vocabulary of modern Hebrew is much larger than what appears in the Bible, I'm not sure what you think has changed so much about Hebrew that my rabbi is dreaming. Orthography? Agreed. Phonology? Grammar? Shoresh and binyan?

The discrepancies of biblical and "modern" Hebrew are the subject of thousands of years of minute study. I'd guess most orthodox rabbis are very aware of where there is evidence of a change in the language.

But perhaps you are arguing that even the text of the Bible does not capture the language of 3-4,000 years ago, but dates from a later era. David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

The major features of Exodus never happened. For the entire patriarchal and most of the pre-exilic period Yahweh was one of a number of gods. The bloody battles in Exodus, as well as 1st and 2nd Kings were the result of conflicts between the different cults. There was a long period during which the Pentateuch was essentially unknown to the Hebrews. This is particuarly clear in 2 Kings 22:8 through 23:3.

As far as linguistics goes, there are many loan words and cognates between all of the Western Semitic languages. The mythic conventions of Ugarit preceded the Bible and established the basic structure.

ETA: Sorry, I was interupted for a momment.

Some very good books you might find helpful are:

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel." Boston: Harvard University Press

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 "Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised" Oxford: Oxford University Press

Smith, Mark S.
2002 典he Early History of God" 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing
_
2003 典he Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts Oxford University Press.

The work by F. M. Cross is probably the most frequently cited text in the field.

Sorry, I don't need to be convinced the bible isn't an accurate record and also contains material adopted from other cultures.

We were discussing the text of Genesis, what languages it was written in, and why those languages fit into the category
Quote
An even greater problem is the proper interpretation of texts far older which were written in languages no one living has ever heard spoken.    


I disagree with you that the phonology of biblical Hebrew is so different as to be problematic in the interpretation of Genesis, which is what I understand you to be saying. Are you arguing that there is a word which has been conflated with 'yom' but didn't mean 'day'? Which was divided into 'erev' and 'boker', which did not mean 'evening' and 'morning', but are words conflated over time with those common Hebrew words?

AiG's argument is not turning on whether the fourth river out of Eden is pronounced Prat, Frat, Porat, Perat, Fruit, or Poirot. People who take the bible literally happily admit this is a word from another language, and that the text is only approximating its original sound value. But 'yom' isn't. Arguing that yom was originally pronounced iyahm doesn't touch the issue at hand. "Languages no one living has ever heard spoken" is a fine rhetorical flourish, but not very useful as an argument.

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,17:09   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 14 2008,14:31)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,15:44)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 14 2008,08:19)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,10:20)
The languages I was refering to were Akkadian, Ugaritic and Phoenician. But for that matter, bronze age biblical Hebrew is far different from modern Hebrew. There are many examples of wordplay in the Bible which does make it possible to imagine the pronunciations. If your rabbi thinks he speaks the same language as David or Moses, he is dreaming.

Where do those languages appear in Genesis, other than place names?

I know that I don't speak the same language as Chaucer, and barely the same language as Shakespeare. While the vocabulary of modern Hebrew is much larger than what appears in the Bible, I'm not sure what you think has changed so much about Hebrew that my rabbi is dreaming. Orthography? Agreed. Phonology? Grammar? Shoresh and binyan?

The discrepancies of biblical and "modern" Hebrew are the subject of thousands of years of minute study. I'd guess most orthodox rabbis are very aware of where there is evidence of a change in the language.

But perhaps you are arguing that even the text of the Bible does not capture the language of 3-4,000 years ago, but dates from a later era. David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

The major features of Exodus never happened. For the entire patriarchal and most of the pre-exilic period Yahweh was one of a number of gods. The bloody battles in Exodus, as well as 1st and 2nd Kings were the result of conflicts between the different cults. There was a long period during which the Pentateuch was essentially unknown to the Hebrews. This is particuarly clear in 2 Kings 22:8 through 23:3.

As far as linguistics goes, there are many loan words and cognates between all of the Western Semitic languages. The mythic conventions of Ugarit preceded the Bible and established the basic structure.

ETA: Sorry, I was interupted for a momment.

Some very good books you might find helpful are:

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel." Boston: Harvard University Press

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 "Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised" Oxford: Oxford University Press

Smith, Mark S.
2002 典he Early History of God" 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing
_
2003 典he Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts Oxford University Press.

The work by F. M. Cross is probably the most frequently cited text in the field.

Sorry, I don't need to be convinced the bible isn't an accurate record and also contains material adopted from other cultures.

We were discussing the text of Genesis, what languages it was written in, and why those languages fit into the category
 
Quote
An even greater problem is the proper interpretation of texts far older which were written in languages no one living has ever heard spoken.


I disagree with you that the phonology of biblical Hebrew is so different as to be problematic in the interpretation of Genesis, which is what I understand you to be saying. Are you arguing that there is a word which has been conflated with 'yom' but didn't mean 'day'? Which was divided into 'erev' and 'boker', which did not mean 'evening' and 'morning', but are words conflated over time with those common Hebrew words?

AiG's argument is not turning on whether the fourth river out of Eden is pronounced Prat, Frat, Porat, Perat, Fruit, or Poirot. People who take the bible literally happily admit this is a word from another language, and that the text is only approximating its original sound value. But 'yom' isn't. Arguing that yom was originally pronounced iyahm doesn't touch the issue at hand. "Languages no one living has ever heard spoken" is a fine rhetorical flourish, but not very useful as an argument.

Genesis 1 - 2:3 was a post exilic add-on to the restored montheistic temple texts. We agree that "yom" in the context of Genesis 1 means literal 24 hour days.

Some how I don't think that you know where the 7 day week was invented, or the theological significance it held outside of the older Hebrew creation myth more or less preserved in Genesis 2-3.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 14 2008,15:10

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,09:55   

Quote
The only path to atheism is through a careful study of scripture


The main path to Atheism is to read lots of AiG material ! I'm serious about that. Certainly if I had come across AiG before I became a Christian I would almost certainly be an Agnostic.

Personally I think debating them is a complete waste of time. Look at how they deal with "million/billions of years for example. Their assertion that "millions of years has not been proven by science" is just plain lying, whether it be to themselves or their followers.

I'm also constantly amazed as to how they deal with the distant starlight problem (for them that is). Telling their followers that "light years is a measurement of distance and not time" is again just lying. Dr. Jason Liasle even has the nerve to show an image of supernova SN1987A in one of his talks.

It'll be interesting though, to see if your debate appears in their feedback over the coming weeks Gary.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,10:28   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 14 2008,18:09)
Genesis 1 - 2:3 was a post exilic add-on to the restored montheistic temple texts. We agree that "yom" in the context of Genesis 1 means literal 24 hour days.

Some how I don't think that you know where the 7 day week was invented, or the theological significance it held outside of the older Hebrew creation myth more or less preserved in Genesis 2-3.

Oh, there's oceans of things I don't know about that! Do you have a good source which explains it? I'd be interested to see how it explains the justification of the Sabbath in the Decalogue, the introduction of the concept wrt the manna, the building of the mishkan, Joshua at Jericho, etc.

Unfortunately, those things are irrelevant to the issue, which is that you started your argument badly. It is simply not true that the difficulties of understanding the text derive from an uncertainty about what the words mean, an uncertainty driven by the remoteness in time in which the words were composed, and changes in phonology.

Just btw, can you read biblical Hebrew?

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,15:53   

I am not going to argue the point here.

http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/the-origin-of-the-seven-day-week

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,15:56   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 13 2008,18:05)
The only path to atheism is through a careful study of scripture.

??

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,20:53   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 15 2008,13:56)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 13 2008,18:05)
The only path to atheism is through a careful study of scripture.

??

Science is about as atheistic as plumbing, or auto mechanics. Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" to reflect the fact that science can neither confirm, nor refute the existance of a diety.

But a careful study of the Bible will make most people atheists. There is an old joke, "What is a seminary? It is place that good Christians go to become atheists."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,22:01   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 16 2008,08:53)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 15 2008,13:56)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 13 2008,18:05)
The only path to atheism is through a careful study of scripture.

??

Science is about as atheistic as plumbing, or auto mechanics. Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" to reflect the fact that science can neither confirm, nor refute the existance of a diety.

But a careful study of the Bible will make most people atheists. There is an old joke, "What is a seminary? It is place that good Christians go to become atheists."

I wouldn't be surprised if more people in forum debates deconvert based on the bible rather than science.
With the science people like ftk can keep themselves ignorant and cry improbable unless the contents of millions of papers are summarised in words of one syllable.
In a scripture debate the shoe is on the other foot and they are the ones required to prove the case of the Bible, and the atheist just needs to pick holes in the explanations.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2008,02:15   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 16 2008,08:53)
Science is about as atheistic as plumbing, or auto mechanics. Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" to reflect the fact that science can neither confirm, nor refute the existance of a diety.

OTOH, science can show you that that ancient myths of supernatural entities are unreliable, which suggests that neither the myths nor theological ideas based on them merit special status.

IMHO, it's no coincidence that the scientific age has brought about a bigger rise in atheism than the preceding thousand years of theological study and debate. Science may not prove or disprove a deity, but it certainly supports a worldview that doesn't need one. In a world that appears to be governed by reason, what use is the concept of a deity whose characteristics (including existence) cannot be objectively determined ? How do you choose between the innumerable variants ?

On the original topic:
I'm sad to say, I haven't found the debate to be very entertaining so far. IMO AIG already lost the moment they said "The Biblical Account is Self-Authenticating and Self-Attesting"

If your argument is "My book says so, and it's true because it says so." ... um ...U FAIL AT LOGICSGAME OVER K THX BYE. The fact it needs more of a response than LOLmockery is quite depressing.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2008,04:51   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 15 2008,20:53)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 15 2008,13:56)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 13 2008,18:05)
The only path to atheism is through a careful study of scripture.

??

Science is about as atheistic as plumbing, or auto mechanics. Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" to reflect the fact that science can neither confirm, nor refute the existance of a diety.

I still don't see why the only path to atheism is through a careful study of scripture.

I believe that there is no God because there is too much injustice in this world (among other things).
That implies that God=justice, but that's hardly a study of scripture. I haven't read the bible.

Of course, if God can mean anything (including the FSM), then I could qualify as agnostic.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2008,11:27   

I must say that I am rather disapointed in the AiG's lack of responce myself.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2008,12:41   

Quote
I still don't see why the only path to atheism is through a careful study of scripture.


You're taking it a mite too literally ("only" is an exaggeration for effect). In as far as it's an argument, it opposes the Dawkinsian line that scientific discovery alone gives sufficient reason to reject theism.

And it's a humorous statement, where the humor comes about through an inversion of expectations. The religious might say, "The true path to the Kingdom of God [or whatever] is through the careful study of scripture." Dr. GH is just emphasizing "careful" to make the point that believers in scripture and disinterested scholars have a very different idea in mind when they use that word in this context. The believer has to be careful not to read to carefully.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2008,13:22   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 15 2008,16:53)
I am not going to argue the point here.

http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/the-origin-of-the-seven-day-week

I think you do a good job of answering the AiG claim of biblical uniqueness of the 7 day week. Wikipedia quotes others as to the naturalness of quartering the lunar cycle.

It wasn't clear to me from your presentation of the material whether you were bringing example of the Egyptian astrologers simply as an example of a non-biblical seven day week (one with strong influence on European culture) or whether you meant to imply that the biblical week was adapted from the Hellenist Egyptian week. I think the second case would be much harder to prove.

Do you have more than one source for the idea that Genesis 1 was redacted into the Torah separately from the rest of the J material? I'm having trouble finding that this is more than a single person's opinion. It seems unlikely if redaction events were prompted by the need to accomodate different traditions in newly mixed communities - a typical theory for what drove the redaction of J and E together, then JE, P, and D. After Ezra, its difficult for me to see how Gen 1 could have been introduced, or why.

BTW, this same process of redaction/conflation is responsible for the inordinate length of the Rosh HaShannah and Yom Kippur prayer book. As different European Jewish communities were destroyed and mixed, liturgical poems multiplied by "lateral gene transfer" as individual traditions were combined. Now the services are actually difficult to get through during daylight if you insist on reading everyone of them.

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2008,22:19   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 16 2008,11:22)
I think you do a good job of answering the AiG claim of biblical uniqueness of the 7 day week. Wikipedia quotes others as to the naturalness of quartering the lunar cycle.

It wasn't clear to me from your presentation of the material whether you were bringing example of the Egyptian astrologers simply as an example of a non-biblical seven day week (one with strong influence on European culture) or whether you meant to imply that the biblical week was adapted from the Hellenist Egyptian week. I think the second case would be much harder to prove.

Do you have more than one source for the idea that Genesis 1 was redacted into the Torah separately from the rest of the J material? I'm having trouble finding that this is more than a single person's opinion. It seems unlikely if redaction events were prompted by the need to accomodate different traditions in newly mixed communities - a typical theory for what drove the redaction of J and E together, then JE, P, and D. After Ezra, its difficult for me to see how Gen 1 could have been introduced, or why.

BTW, this same process of redaction/conflation is responsible for the inordinate length of the Rosh HaShannah and Yom Kippur prayer book. As different European Jewish communities were destroyed and mixed, liturgical poems multiplied by "lateral gene transfer" as individual traditions were combined. Now the services are actually difficult to get through during daylight if you insist on reading everyone of them.

The Gen 1 -2:4 as a post exilic addition is the conclusion of a good number of people.

Mark Smith, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Bart D. Ehrman, Richard Elliott Friedman, are authors of the more clearly stated arguments.

The "lateral 'meme' transfer" is an attractive idea when attempting a cultural exegesis.

You might enjoy reading

Sparks, Kenton L.
2005 鄭ncient Texts for the Study of  the Hebrew Bible Peabody PA: Hendrickson Publishers

Speiser, E. A.
1962 "Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes"  New York: Anchor Bible- Doubleday

Zevit, Ziony
2001 "The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches New York: Continuum Press

The JPS Tanaka is a committee translation, and so they are very "understated."

I do think that it is likely that the Hebrew 7 day week was post exilic and was Egyptian in a broad sense. It was given a Judean/Yahwist reading. More or less, Genesis 1-2:3 is asserting the idea that Yahweh created the universe but also all the other gods- each day was actually associated with a god. There is also a good deal of ideas from Enuma Elish as well.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2008,11:28   

Thanks, I'd seen the idea associated with Freidman.

It makes sense to me to add the story as an exercise in post-exilic nationalism. The reason you adduce re asserting sovereignty over other gods is one I have heard before, though not necessarily related to the timing of its introduction.

In a sense, the classic comment of Rashi on Gen 1:1 is similar in focus. Rashi asks (following the Midrash) why the Torah, as a legal text, includes any of Genesis at all, and particularly the first chapter. His answer is that it establishes that God is the legal owner of the planet, and can dispense any part of it as gift to whomever He wants. So the right of the Jews to Palestine is set in a legal framework.

I think all of the documentary strands, JEPD, include the idea that there is a day of rest more frequent than the new moon, and it is the seventh day of a cycle. As such, you'd have to argue that all the sources were radically editted in the Hellenistic period, and there was a complete break with Palestinian agrarian traditions, and Jews in Babylon had a better affinity to Egypt than Persia. And, probably, that the original Hebrew week was longer than seven days, because you can't sell having less time off, as the Revolutionary French found out!


I thought your first Tanaka was slip, but since you repeated it, let me point out the word is Tanakh. It is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim, the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible.

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2008,12:41   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 17 2008,09:28)
I thought your first Tanaka was slip, but since you repeated it, let me point out the word is Tanakh. It is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim, the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible.

do'h

Sorry about that. I have the JPS "Jewish Study Bible" right in front of me, too.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2008,13:11   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 16 2008,11:27)
I must say that I am rather disapointed in the AiG's lack of responce myself.

I feel the same way. Seems like all they did was spew a few of their crappy talking points and skip away back to dinosaur land.

Kicking Oompah-Loompahs indeed.

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2008,09:11   

Apparently there's another online debate going on between AiG and an evolutionist. Sadly (according to AiG), the evolutionist is a Christian and a professor at Eastern Nazarene College:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/10/20/debate-finally

Quote
This week, however, we have the rare opportunity to debate an evolutionist. While it is not a traditional debate in front of a live audience, we welcome this chance to be featured in a special forum on a very popular website, www.BeliefNet.com. The sad part is that the evolutionist being debated is a Christian professor at Eastern Nazarene College (since 1984) and also Director of the Forum on Faith and Science at Gordon College, both in Massachusetts. Dr. Karl Giberson is the author of Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, and beginning today and over the next few days, he and AiG President Ken Ham will have a running debate on the topic of whether Christianity is compatible with evolution.2


The debate has started today:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....s-today

Speaking as a Christian who accepts mainstream science (in effect evolutionary science) I have found in the past that Ham has often come out on top in debates such as these (at least according to AiG that is). Unless Dr. Giberson can come up with answers to Ham's theological questions (personally, I would say that these are Ham's interpretations of the bible) he's going to fare just as badly. I hope not. But then, AiG always puts it's own spin on things and no matter what happens AiG are always going to win the argument.

Maybe the title of the debate should be "Is Christianity compatible with science".

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2008,15:47   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Oct. 21 2008,07:11)
Apparently there's another online debate going on between AiG and an evolutionist. Sadly (according to AiG), the evolutionist is a Christian and a professor at Eastern Nazarene College

Along with "Why Do Liberals Hate The Real Americans Who Believe In God?" I found the debate Here.

Edited to change the url.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 21 2008,13:52

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2008,06:24   

Gary:

How's the debate going ? Any further nonsense from AiG etc . or have things died the death so to speak ?

I thought you might be interested in this exchange of views between Todd Greene and John Morris of the ICR (Morris chips in about a third of the way down) Re. SN 1987A and the implications for "Young Earth Cosmology"

As you are probably no doubt aware, Todd Greene's website is Greene's creationist truth filter. Lots of excellent artricles on astronomy and cosmolgy and he also deals at length with Russell Humphreys' white light cosmology nonsense.

http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/ETforum.html#ET07

I've copied and pasted the exchange of views as they are quite far down the blog:

Quote
From: Todd S. Greene
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: The Ancient Universe, and SN1987A


Hi, John (Morris; since there's another John writing here).

Here's the exchange:
[Todd]
>> As an example of the objective data about the real world that
>> demonstrates that young earth creationism is an incorrect
>> belief about the world, SN1987A is a stellar explosion that
>> occurred approximately 162,000 years *before* YECs' speculated
>> origin time of the universe. Obviously, stars can't explode if
>> they don't exist. Claiming that this stellar explosion never
>> really happened is not scientific. Go to
>>
>> http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html
>>
>> and look at all of these observations of events surrounding
>> SN1987A that you claim never really happened.

[John]
> Never made such claims that I can remember, I think you are
> having illusions (humor now Todd, this is beyond where I want
> it to be). You must be reading more between the lines than I
> meant there to be. 168,000 years ago is the question.

[Todd]
>> And then keep trying to pretend that
>> YEC is scientific, and that children need to be taught these
>> anti-scientific notions about "these astronomical
>> observations of the past are just illusions" in their
>> science classes in order to have a good science education.
>> Those who know better know that this is absurd.

[John]
> Boy did you get carried away with your "illusions" here.

No, John. I'm discussing ideas that are part of the young earth
creationist position and implications of those ideas. Pull out your copy
of *Scientific Creationism* by Henry Morris (either the "public school"
edition, or the blatantly-based-on-religious-doctrine edition). And
don't forget that I was a YEC myself. I'm not a dummy on this, and I'm
not misrepresenting the YEC position (and David was "graceful" enough
to acknowledge by his comments in his most recent post that I have
represented the matter accurately).

Did you visit the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) website? Have you read
my article:

"SN1987A and The Antiquity of The Universe"

Do you understand the fact that the uniformity of lightspeed is observed
and not merely an assumption? Did you understand my point that if
lightspeed was radically faster in the past then we would observed an
equally radical "slow motion" effect, but that no such slow motion
effect is observed to exist?

You state that you "see two bodies of 'facts' that are in opposition."
You do? Where? I've seen the facts that show antiquity, and I have
discussed some of them here. Where are the YEC "facts" in opposition?
Please present the facts that show that SN1987A occurred less than
6,000 years ago. In fact, we all know that no such facts exist.

I certainly grant that you might not be "up to speed" on the relevant
details of these kinds of things. I'm absolutely not going to criticize
someone merely for not being aware of the details. I don't expect you to
swallow anything I state hook, line, and sinker. Not at all. I expect
you, who is arguing in direct opposition to all of science and who yet
argues that young earth creationism is "truth" about the world, to
demonstrate your claimed respect for truth by digging into the details
and making yourself aware of them. What I criticize is not being aware
of the details while then making arguments based on ignoring the details
and then even after having been made aware of the details that
contradict the argument obstinately refusing to acknowledge that either
(1) the argument did not take the contrary details into account, or (2)
the contrary details don't really count because they are not real but
are merely "philosophical assumptions." It is the constant pretension
that I criticize. If you aren't engaging in such pretension, then I
won't criticize you in particular for it. At the same time, I may very
well point out such pretensions, since that is what your arguments are
based on, whether you yourself personally realize it or not. (Again, I
state this as a former YEC myself.)

I'm glad that you don't hold your YEC belief as infallible (regardless
of what we actually observe about the real world). (I didn't look at it
that way either, and that's one big reason I'm not a young earth
creationist today.) What we actually observe about the real world shows
us that it has existed far longer than just 6,000 years. So the
question, then, is, what part of these observations are unclear to you?
And then it becomes a matter of you digging into the relevant details,
and working to understand them.

There is some equivocation in your statement that we "may learn that
what we think we know to be true today is not true tomorrow." This is a
conceptual obfuscation that has been presented to me often. I've read
comments just like this for over twenty years. Please tell me, which
part of "the earth revolves around the sun" is equivocal? Does Jupiter
have moons, or not? Is disease caused by evil spirits, or
microorganisms and biological dysfunction? There are fuzzy ideas about
the real world, and there are ideas about the real world that are so
well known that they are facts about the real world. The fact that the
universe is ancient is known by direct observation. It is just as
factual as knowing that Jupiter has moon and that there are planets
beyond Saturn. The only ones who are arguing otherwise are people who
demonstrate (despite their pretensions otherwise) that they are clearly
and obviously motivated by religious belief and not by the relevant
objective data.

I reiterate that there is no question here about the factual details
showing that, as one explicit example, SN1987A occurred approximately
168,000 years ago. The YEC idea that the universe did not exist prior to
about 6,000 years ago has been unequivocally disproved by direct
observation. The only question with regard to you personally is, how
much are you aware of these details and how much do you understand about
them?

In closing this post, I wish to thank you for your kind personal
comments regarding my knowledge and abilities. I respond by claiming
that, in fact, I'm no more knowledgeable and able than the next guy. I'm
simply someone who in being raised in Christian belief (my father was
a minister in our denomination) took our stated veneration of truth
seriously. Truth and the results of my truth-seeking demanded that I
abandon my belief in young earth creationism, and so I did.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



###### John Morris, 4/26/01 8:42 AM ######
[snip]

>> I'm not making accusations, John. I'm stating accurate descriptions of
>> YEC concepts and their implications. That's not "accusations" but just
>> the simple truth.
>>
>> Scientists don't disagree about the facts regarding SN1987A, and they
>> don't disagree that they are facts. The only ones who are pretending
>> that the facts aren't the facts are young earth creationists. Now if
>> these same young earth creationists would step off their pedestal of
>> believing that their young earth belief is infallible (regardless of
>> what we actually observe about the real world), and would care to
>> actually deal with the facts instead of waving their hands and blithely
>> dismissing the facts as being "not real," then we could get somewhere.
>> The facts are not in dispute. When YECs such as yourself claim that
>> even though we have directly observed such events from the distant past
>> as SN1987A, these events never really occurred but are merely illusions,
>> then you part company with science. When you start treating the real
>> world itself as merely an illusion you have abandoned science and
>> embraced the subjectivism of believing whatever it is you wish to
>> believe regardless of the fact that what is observed about the real
>> world disproves your belief. Your belief has been tested against the
>> real world and has been shown to be an incorrect belief about the real
>> world.

I never said my assumptions were infallable, do not twist what I said.
In fact I believe I specifically said the opposite (I do not have my
original text). If I remember correctly I said that we (for you and me
included), are still learning and may learn that what we think we know to be
true today is not true tomorrow. And I know I could be wrong in some things
I believe to be true today. So if anybody is on an infallible pedestal, it
is not me. At this point I am I see two bodies of "facts" that are in
oppostion and I'm chosing to stick with what I believe the scriptures to be
saying.


>> It's these games that YECs play about, "Well, these facts that
>> contradict our position are not really facts but just misinterpretations
>> of the data based on philosophical assumptions," but the "philosophical
>> assumption" they happen to be referring to is that the data of the real
>> world itself is real rather than illusory, and yet YECs are pretending
>> to be scientific while they themselves are promoting their subjectivist
>> philosophy that objective observations of the real world will deceive us
>> if we think they represent reality, then we have some serious problems
>> about it being YECs themselves who are being deceptive.

I have never stated nor implied SN1987A is an illusion. What I am
saying is in a day when so many refuse to believe in absolutes how can
anyone claim without a shadow of a doubt that something occured thousands
of years ago? I am sure your figures are very accurate from what we know
today. My problem is how can we be sure the figures were accurate for what
was going on thousands of years ago? What you are asking me to swallow
hook line and sinker is there is no possible way something different could
have happened in history that would cause things to be different today than
thousands of years ago and therefore change your results. I cannot accept
that. I would say that would be acting more like a deity than acting in
honesty.

[snip]


>> These distortions deserve criticism and clarification. Let's dig into
>> the facts about SN1987A more, John. I know that I have absolutely
>> nothing to fear from the truth, because the antiquity of the world is as
>> factual as the revolution of the earth about the sun. I know what the
>> relevant data is, and what it shows. And unlike young earth
>> creationists, I'm not the one going around pretending to be scientific
>> while claiming that objective data of the real world is illusory.
>>
>> You state that what keeps you anchored in your YEC beliefs is what you
>> know about the Bible. The geocentrists condemned Galileo on this same
>> principle. And the fact remains that there exists a wide variety of
>> interpretations of the Bible related to this issue among Christians
>> whose beliefs are anchored on what they know about the Bible.

Yes the church has made its share of error in the past and still does
today.


Is this really getting down to the nitty gritty or what with all this talk about YECs actually denying reality ? Tod Greene certainly appears to have Morris all tied up in knots

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2008,08:30   

at least some YECs have attempted to make their anti-realist stance a bit more coherent.  ultimately it is invulnerable to attack, but at the cost of having nothing meaningful to say about the world.  as an always empirically equivalent epiphilosophy, this general anti-realism does not dabble in particulars.  the problem for YECers is that they can't resist saying science is wrong about X.  then we have the problem.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2008,11:09   

Thanks Peter for the interesting reading. As I recall, Henry Morris insisted that there were no extrasolar planets, and if there were then YEC was false. That was in "Scientific Creationism" IIRC.

As far as I can tell the "debate" was over befor it started. The AiG people never responded at all. Ken Ham did have a mini debate with Karl Giberson. Famous YEC asshole, Jon Sarfati has shown up there as well.

I was tempted to jump in, but only made two rather short comments.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
  36 replies since Oct. 13 2008,17:13 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]