Peek a Boo Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 So why do you think it's not been misinterpreted in regards to the creation story? ... Why shouldn't we reexamine our interpretation of the creation story in the Bible just as we demand our scientists reexamine their interpretation of the data. Especially since there are 2 separate creation stories in Genesis. Sorry, but the Bible may or may not be inerrent. It may or may not be literally true. BUT I am human and I err. Therefore I am very likely to misinterpret parts of the Bible, just as you are likely to. yeah, but most Christians usually interpret the "second" account of Creation as a compatible, more detailed analysis, similar to the gospel accounts. There are plenty of articles online for anyone that wants to look into that further. personally? in my own analysis of scripture and ToE, the only place i tend to split from ToE is in the "dinosaurs turned into birds" idea [to paraphrase horribly]. I'm more in the camp that if indeed the ToE is correct, they are simply missing a big chunk of evidence that shows birds and sea creatures BEFORE land animals. Altho it would be possible for some land animals to THEN [after earlier creation of birds] evolve into additional birds. Unfortunately, the fossil record is pretty scant as far as a complete record of life is concerned. We certainly have SCADS of fossils, but even if we had every stinkin' fossil out there, it can't account for every animal/plant that ever lived, simply because not everything turns into a fossil. We had a blast last summer excavating a sea turtle fossil from our creek w/ Dr. Louis Jacobs and his team from SMU. That guy is a HOOT! He has some very.... fun.... thoughts about evolution and religion... ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Actually, evidence was discovered in primates. Koko, the gorilla who was taught sign language, had a kitten/cat named "All Ball" (she named the cat herself). At some point, the cat died. When Koko's handlers told her about it, and asked her if she understood what it meant, Koko replied that All Ball had "gone to a higher place" and would not be returning. yeah, but [for the skeptics out there], anyone could have trained Koko w/ that response for death situations. We are simply taking their word on what was spontaneously expressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 yeah, but [for the skeptics out there], anyone could have trained Koko w/ that response for death situations. We are simply taking their word on what was spontaneously expressed. By that logic, people are simply taking the word of some people who lived in the 1st through 4th (etc.) centuries that the entire New Testament actually occurred. asta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 yeah, but most Christians usually interpret the "second" account of Creation as a compatible, more detailed analysis, similar to the gospel accounts. There are plenty of articles online for anyone that wants to look into that further. So what you mean to admit is that the gospels contradict each other as well? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 By that logic, people are simply taking the word of some people who lived in the 1st through 4th (etc.) centuries that the entire New Testament actually occurred. many staunch scientists absolutely make that very point, so i guess it would have to go both ways, eh? ;) So what you mean to admit is that the gospels contradict each other as well? ;) no --what i mean to admit is that I realize many people DO believe the gospels contradict each other. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newlifemom Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Bill and Peek, Are you being good?:toetap05: Oops for the important, "Do I have to separate you two?" :biggrinjester: Edited May 14, 2009 by newlifemom Important ommision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Have you actually watched or read any of the AiG materials??? The straw man in this case is Mathus and Spencer. And links between racism and the Theory of Evolution. yes, I've read AiG materials. based on the political and social history of eugenics coupled w/ the scientific works supporting ToE, I am going to take this very slowly and ask you to explain as if i was 2yo exactly where you see the straw man, esp since AiG's position doesn't depend on on Malthus, Spencer, or racism, but merely comments on them. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2] Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Bill and Peek, Are you being good?:toetap05: Oops for the important, "Do I have to separate you two?" :biggrinjester: :tongue_smilie: I think we're being good!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 :tongue_smilie:I think we're being good!!! LOOK!! I'm agreeing with Peep Again! So I must be wrong :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 So I must be wrong :tongue_smilie: :iagree: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 yes, I've read AiG materials. based on the political and social history of eugenics coupled w/ the scientific works supporting ToE, I am going to take this very slowly and ask you to explain as if i was 2yo exactly where you see the straw man, esp since AiG's position doesn't depend on on Malthus, Spencer, or racism, but merely comments on them. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2] Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument. Your link takes me to a page that is irrelevant to the discussion. AiG constantly (and dis-honestly) tries to link The Theory of Evolution to things like "eugenics". It's easy to make "eugenics" look bad. It is bad. So AiG tries to confuse young children and their parents that "evolutionists" embrace eugenics and that it is part of evolutionary theory (when it is not), and they try to "defeat" the validity of the Theory of Evolution by attacking eugenics. This is a classic "straw-man" fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Your link takes me to a page that is irrelevant to the discussion. how is AiG's official position on evolution irrelevant to this discussion? You can find all their statements about evolution there. One section of seven options under evolution is devoted to darwin, and some of those do include comments about the impact of darwin's work on eugenics and racism. AiG constantly (and dis-honestly) tries to link The Theory of Evolution to things like "eugenics". that's because so many people in the history OF the ToE WERE involved in eugenics. "Trying" to link the two is like "trying" to link Christianity w/ the Crusades and other atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christianity.....not every Christian is guilty, but quite a few are. That's an honest assessment of the history of the issue, whether we like it or not is irrelevant. It's easy to make "eugenics" look bad. It is bad. not necessarily. But it CERTAINLY is when it is employed by force, and that happened even here in America. So AiG tries to confuse young children and their parents that "evolutionists" embrace eugenics many "evolutionists" DID/DO embrace eugenics. how many eugenicists don't embrace evolution? and that it is part of evolutionary theory (when it is not), where does AiG say eugenics is PART of evolutionary theory?? i missed that and read quite the opposite: that eugenics relies on evolutionary theory. and they try to "defeat" the validity of the Theory of Evolution by attacking eugenics. this is where you make an illogical jump: they are not trying to "defeat" the validity of the ToE by attacking eugenics: they are trying to "defeat" the validity of the ToE by quoting scripture [thus the "Genesis" part of their name] and addressing what they consider to be scientific discrepancies [in the other SIX areas linked above]. Attacking eugenics [which received a heck of a jumpstart w/ the early writings of evolutionary theory and continues to benefit from genetic and evolutionary research even today] is merely a side issue, not a core one. Kinda like The God Delusion is not a core issue of the scientific community that does anything to effectively "defeat" the Creation Science/ ID ideas, just a side issue. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessedfamily Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Good grief. You two were up at 3 and 4 am going at it???????? :001_huh: ETA- Oops. Sorry. I just looked and saw that Pam has made sure you were playing nicely. Continue. :lurk5: Edited May 14, 2009 by Blessedfamily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Good grief. You two were up at 3 and 4 am going at it???????? :001_huh: That's what I thought. I have an excuse: different time zone. asta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathy in MD Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) yeah, but most Christians usually interpret the "second" account of Creation as a compatible, more detailed analysis, similar to the gospel accounts. There are plenty of articles online for anyone that wants to look into that further. That shows that right here we have at least one group that's misinterpreted the this particular chapter, possibly both groups. So which one's right? Or is either group right? That's why I maintain we must be open to reexaming our interpretation. personally? in my own analysis of scripture and ToE, the only place i tend to split from ToE is in the "dinosaurs turned into birds" idea [to paraphrase horribly]. I'm more in the camp that if indeed the ToE is correct, they are simply missing a big chunk of evidence that shows birds and sea creatures BEFORE land animals. According to the fossil record, sea creatures, including primative fishes, did evolve long before land animals did. So all we need to find are very early birds for you. Altho it would be possible for some land animals to THEN [after earlier creation of birds] evolve into additional birds. Kathy Edited May 14, 2009 by Kathy in MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathy in MD Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Actually, evidence was discovered in primates. Koko, the gorilla who was taught sign language, had a kitten/cat named "All Ball" (she named the cat herself). At some point, the cat died. When Koko's handlers told her about it, and asked her if she understood what it meant, Koko replied that All Ball had "gone to a higher place" and would not be returning. asta This is still at the anecdotal level. It's worth further investigation, but the sample of one may have been "polluted" by having an earlier conversation about death that was forgotten by the investigators or a conversation that Koko overheard. Have you heard of any follow-up research? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 That's what I thought. I have an excuse: different time zone. asta I don't have an excuse. I was sucked in, got very little writing done. (Shame on you two, it is all your fault if my customers can't use SOTW this fall! :lol:) And now I have a headache! I can't resist!!! I think I am going to have to go on a board break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 That shows that right here we have at least one group that's misinterpreted the this particular chapter, possibly both groups. So which one's right? Or is either group right? That's why I maintain we must be open to reexaming our interpretation. I couldn't agree more. We should all examine the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so. Acts 17:11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.