Evolution of humans solved by Shane Warne

[Craig B]

Gord,
A better quote from your source would be, My bold. Sure people have strong feelings and get angry when this is pointed out to them. The fact remains that this literalist view is a relatively new thing, and in my opinion mainly driven by those trying to attack religion in general, and using science to do it. It's the old if someone pushes, the natural reaction is to push back. If you don't push in the first place and simply discuss it rationally, you will find that it was NEVER intended to be taken literally. At least not by educated people.

ETA; Just to clarify, by push I mean try to convert to atheism.

Here's another source. From Galileo's rap sheet.

... the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held ... But his certificate produced by you in your defense has only aggravated your delinquency, since, although it is there stated that said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its probability.​

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

 

[Slowvehicle]

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-denies-eve-came.htm

Craig,
I understand that there are many doctrines like original sin we could discuss, but that's really a topic for a different forum, and for people who are formally trained in religious dogma. My sole purpose for posting on this thread is to dispel the YEC myth that the Bible must be interpreted literally with regards to creationism. In fact those chapters were meant to be taught as symbolism and have NOTHING to do with evolutionary science, pro or con. It should be a non issue to any rational person.

1. "Slowvehicle" is not "Craig".

2. The Catholic Church, as has been pointed out to you, disagrees with your facile dismissal of the Creation Stories as "metaphorical"; as does the Southern Baptist Convention (to name but two large xian confessions).

3. I am curious as to by whom you, personally, think the creation stories were "meant to be taught as symbolism", and upon what authority.

4. I agree that the Creation Stories are not science, nor are they good descriptions of the theory of evolution by natural selection; I disagree with your facile interpretations and casual dismissals of the presumed intent of the authors, editors, redactors, and canonizers.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You continue to answer the questions you wish I had asked.

Where, in the source Gord_in_Toronto quoted (you know, what you called "your source" in your post to him) does your contention appear?

Further, do you understand the idea of the Novum Ordo? Is it your contention that Franky was speaking ex cathedra, and overturning 2000 years of dogma?

DId you miss this bit?


I encourage you to read the catechism.

No I simply posted Gord's source, which you claim Gord didn't post. Since Gord posted two sources, you apparently missed the second source Gord posted, which I quoted from.

As far as Catholic catechisms and dogma. If it is important to you, I guess I should say that I am not catholic and do not hold the Pope or the Catholic Church infallible nor any man or organisation of men infallible for that matter. Just pointing out the fact that the Pope has declared that it always was taught that part of the bible allegorical. Whether or not the Catholic Church also teaches other dogmas inconsistent with that is for them to decide and for someone trained in Catholic dogma and catechisms to explain. I can't. I am not educated in Catholic dogma enough to do it even if I tried.

Seems to me you are desperately trying to derail a science thread. To what purpose I don't know but it is not interesting for me. What is interesting for me is discussing the failure of YEC to explain ANYTHING rational whether biblical or scientific.

1. "Slowvehicle" is not "Craig".

Captain obvious? Two people posted to me, I answered both people.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No I simply posted Gord's source, which you claim Gord didn't post. Since Gord posted two sources, you apparently missed the second source Gord posted, which I quoted from.

As far as Catholic catechisms and dogma. If it is important to you, I guess I should say that I am not catholic and do not hold the Pope or the Catholic Church infallible nor any man or organisation of men infallible for that matter. Just pointing out the fact that the Pope has declared that it always was taught that part of the bible allegorical. Whether or not the Catholic Church also teaches other dogmas inconsistent with that is for them to decide and for someone trained in Catholic dogma and catechisms to explain. I can't. I am not educated in Catholic dogma enough to do it even if I tried.

Seems to me you are desperately trying to derail a science thread. To what purpose I don't know but it is not interesting for me. What is interesting for me is discussing the failure of YEC to explain ANYTHING rational whether biblical or scientific.

Captain obvious? Two people posted to me, I answered both people.

Again, you are incorrect in your ALWAYS.

Feel free to persist in your error.

It is hard enough to confront creationists and other believers when you characterize their beliefs accurately. When you begin misstating their beliefs, when you are in error about their claims, you make yourself easy to dismiss. The only "importance" of sources like the Catechism is that they are ways to avoid error in attributing ALWAYS beliefs to them as what do not hold them, so to speak...

(...and you only named one of the people to who you were replying,and appended your address to Craig to a quote from me; obfuscating your purpose, Corporal Obscure...)

OTH, I did, in fact, miss that G_i_T posted two sources; you did not bother to state from which one you were quoting out of context. I still wonder if you think Franky was overturning 2000 years of dogma, ex cathedra.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Again, you are incorrect in your ALWAYS.

Feel free to persist in your error.

It is hard enough to confront creationists and other believers when you characterize their beliefs accurately. When you begin misstating their beliefs, when you are in error about their claims, you make yourself easy to dismiss.

(...and you only named one of the people to who you were replying; obfuscating your purpose, Corporal Obscure...)

OTH, I did, in fact, miss that G_i_T posted two sources; you did not bother to state form which one you were quoting out of context.

Agreed, I said "from your source" and did not specify which of the two. A failure on my part to be clear. However, the always was a quote. If the Pope was wrong, take it up with him. Not my issue. I already explained that I don't hold any man infallible. If the Pope was wrong, so be it. However, it is safe to say that the Pope is an authority on the catholic church. I am far more likely to believe his opinion on what the catholic church teaches than some random atheist in a science thread. Even if I don't believe his teachings, I could understand that he is an authority in what he teaches. He seems to think the church has "always" taught that the creation stories in the bible are allegorical and symbolic in nature. In fact it appears to me that he is chastising those in the church teaching otherwise. It even seems those being chastised are angry about it. I myself understood that the stories were symbolic quite easily even at a very early age. Why you insist that any rational person could view those stories literal is a mystery to me. I have never understood anyone, whether YEC or atheist, who couldn't see they are obviously allegorical. Do you also think Aesop's fables were meant to be taken literal too?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My work here is done.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Agreed, I said "from your source" and did not specify which of the two. A failure on my part to be clear. However, the always was a quote. If the Pope was wrong, take it up with him. Not my issue. I already explained that I don't hold any man infallible. If the Pope was wrong, so be it. However, it is safe to say that the Pope is an authority on the catholic church. I am far more likely to believe his opinion on what the catholic church teaches than some random atheist in a science thread. Even if I don't believe his teachings, I could understand that he is an authority in what he teaches. He seems to think the church has always taught that the creation stories in the bible are allegorical and symbolic in nature. In fact it appears to me that he is chastising those in the church teaching otherwise. It even seems those being chastised are angry about it. I myself understood that the stories were symbolic quite easily even at a very early age. Why you insist that any rational person could view those stories literal is a mystery to me. I have never understood anyone, whether YEC or atheist, who couldn't see they are obviously allegorical. Do you also think Aesop's fables were meant to be taken literal too?

The Catechism, written before Franky's Novum Ordo improvs, presents a different picture of what has "ALWAYS" been dogmatically stated.

Further, you continue to do me wrong: I never tried to explain how "... any rational person could view those stories literal[sic]..."; I simply pointed out that there are, in fact, adherents of at least two major traditions who do, in fact,take the Creation Stories (Mk I and Mk II) literally, and you do err to pretend it is not so.

 

[hecd2]

The fact is that the domain of what rational adherents of various major Christian denominations hold to be literal in the early chapters of Genesis has been steadily shrinking since the 17th C in the face of scientific discoveries. The most recent rearguard action being fought in the RC church has already been mentioned in this thread - the doctrine that all humans descend from a literal Adam and Eve who were the sole ancestors of humans in their generation - and is being fought against the overwhelming genetic evidence that there has not been a bottleneck of two in human ancestry since the human lineage diverged from the lineage leading to chimpanzees.

But in any case, it should be clear to any rational observer who is aware of the history of the Church that the Church has not always taught that the creation story should be regarded as allegorical and symbolic.

The question of how to determine what parts of the bible should be taken literally and what symbolic has long been a knotty problem for the Church and is really the thing that got Galileo into trouble.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The Catechism, written before Franky's Novum Ordo improvs, presents a different picture of what has "ALWAYS" been dogmatically stated.

Further, you continue to do me wrong: I never tried to explain how "... any rational person could view those stories literal[sic]..."; I simply pointed out that there are, in fact, adherents of at least two major traditions who do, in fact,take the Creation Stories (Mk I and Mk II) literally, and you do err to pretend it is not so.

I never pretended that there are not irrational people in this world. I bet there might even be a few that still believe in Santa Claus and flying reindeer as adults. Out of billions of people there are always going to be a few wackos. And what? Completely irrelevant. I quoted the Pope from Gord's source only to show at least some authorities in the church have understood the stories were allegorical. In the Pope's opinion "always". I am not sure it "always" is true or not, but in the Pope's opinion it was. I see no reason to favor some irrational literalist over that. To what purpose? I already understand this obvious point and didn't even need the Pope to spell it out for me. Heck even the book of Job says (allegorically)

Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

In context it is obviously a chastisement of literalists even in one of the oldest books of the Bible. Maybe even the oldest book, as the Genesis story was probably originally written much later from oral traditions. Certainly long before Christianity. The whole book of Job is one long allegory, with a core teaching against a literal dogma. How could anyone understand Job and not understand the allegorical and symbolic nature of the early books in the Bible?

 

[hecd2]

In context it is obviously a chastisement of literalists even in one of the oldest books of the Bible. Maybe even the oldest book, as the Genesis story was probably originally written much later from oral traditions. Certainly long before Christianity. The whole book of Job is one long allegory, with a core teaching against a literal dogma. How could anyone understand Job and not understand the allegorical and symbolic nature of the early books in the Bible?

It is instructive to realise how vastly divergent are the interpretations of almost every verse in the Old Testament (and many in the New); and how every individual believes his or her interpretation is the only and obviously corrrect one.

 

[MikeG]

Do I have to hit the irony report button and report a whole heap of Rule 11 crap, or could we perhaps get back to Shane Warne and evolution?

 

[MikeG]

It is instructive to realise how vastly divergent are the interpretations of almost every verse in the Old Testament (and many in the New); and how every individual believes his or her interpretation is the only and obviously corrrect one.

What's more instructive is to see how many people take any notice whatever of the incoherent and contradictory babblings of bronze age goat herders.

 

[hecd2]

Do I have to hit the irony report button and report a whole heap of Rule 11 crap, or could we perhaps get back to Shane Warne and evolution?

Fair enough. Not sure there's much more to say on that front now we seem to have scared the DH away.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It is instructive to realise how vastly divergent are the interpretations of almost every verse in the Old Testament (and many in the New); and how every individual believes his or her interpretation is the only and obviously corrrect one.

Rather than assuming my interpretation is the only correct one, I simply KNOW that the YEC interpretation of how the earth was formed and mankind brought into existence is incorrect. I know this with a high degree of certainty because of science mainly. The science behind modern evolutionary synthesis really is that robust.

What I think people are not quite getting is that I understood the Bible creation story was symbolism and metaphor years before I understood modern evolutionary synthesis. So when I did finally learn about evolution, I had no crisis of faith as some do. It made perfect sense to me. There was no conflict.

Now if I hadn't figured out the symbolic nature of the creation story first, and was presented with evolutionary theory and told I must believe the two are in conflict, so choose...it certainly might have caused great anguish. So I sympathise with people who were forced to make that choice, no matter what they ultimately decided. But I never had to make it myself.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

My work here is done.

Yeah I wondered if your purpose all along was to simply derail the thread. Whether purposeful or not, it seemed to work.

 

[Nakani]

Delete

 

[Slowvehicle]

Rather than assuming my interpretation is the only correct one, I simply KNOW that the YEC interpretation of how the earth was formed and mankind brought into existence is incorrect. I know this with a high degree of certainty because of science mainly. The science behind modern evolutionary synthesis really is that robust.

What I think people are not quite getting is that I understood the Bible creation story was symbolism and metaphor years before I understood modern evolutionary synthesis. So when I did finally learn about evolution, I had no crisis of faith as some do. It made perfect sense to me. There was no conflict.

Now if I hadn't figured out the symbolic nature of the creation story first, and was presented with evolutionary theory and told I must believe the two are in conflict, so choose...it certainly might have caused great anguish. So I sympathise with people who were forced to make that choice, no matter what they ultimately decided. But I never had to make it myself.

Applauding your own prescience and your puissant understanding is not...quite...the same as showing that the "church" (any "church") has ALWAYS held the OT to be metaphor, or allegory, in gross or in fine.

But feel free to carry on.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yeah I wondered if your purpose all along was to simply derail the thread. Whether purposeful or not, it seemed to work.

I get it. That's supposed to be irony, right? Well played...

Back to the OP:

The opinion of the "church" (any "church") is immaterial.

Things evolved.

Biopoesis is not part of the TOE.

 

[AdamSK]

It is instructive to realise how vastly divergent are the interpretations of almost every verse in the Old Testament (and many in the New); and how every individual believes his or her interpretation is the only and obviously corrrect one.

Yes, it is instructive of how ridiculous our caricatures of those we consider different from ourselves can become.

No, every individual does not believe that "his or her interpretation is the only and obviously correct one." In ACTUAL churches, where REAL PEOPLE discuss this stuff, this is quite a bit more room for discussion, for change, for (gasp!) heterodoxy.

Whatever contempt you have for the religious, please recognize they are not all calcified intransigents like they apparently are in your imagination.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yeah I wondered if your purpose all along was to simply derail the thread. Whether purposeful or not, it seemed to work.

I do not claim purpose; for that would be wrong. But surely you have to admit upon revisiting the OP that the discussion of Adam's penis has actually improved the thread.