RE: Mu (Was Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts)

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 23:52:16 EDT

 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 6:52 PM
To: Glenn Morton; 'asa'
Subject: Re: Mu (Was Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians,
stonewalling the facts)

1st, your view of Genesis goes precisely 0% of the way toward
"allay[ing] Pauls concern about if CHrist be not risen, then we are most
to be pitied." If that's the concern you have to look at the evidence
relating to a putative event of ~ A.D. 30. Whether or not early Genesis
is historical is only marginally related to such an investigation.
 
2d, your argument would be much more compelling if you actually
demonstrated the historical character of early Genesis &/or its accuracy
relative to modern science.
[Glenn Morton]
 
grm:Oh come on George. Even you have said that my interpretation of
Genesis 1:11 as teaching evolution is a possibile interpretation. That
is part of showing Genesis does match some of modern science. Maybe if
you paid attention from debate to debate.
 
But you do neither. Your historical arguments are all "might have been"
ones that require pushing the supposed historical events millions of
years into the past so that the chances of actually verifying that the
text is "real history" is essentially zero. & your attempts to get an
elementary version of a modern scientific description of origins from
Genesis requires that you first put that description in. Genesis 1
doesn't have an elementary version of big bang cosmology. Sure, you can
read it now as if it did but that's quite different from doing it before
Friedmann & Hubble.
[Glenn Morton]
 
 Well when I first came up with my concept of the Mediterranean flood
(which is by the way a verified historical event) I didn't have any
anthropological knowledge. As Bill Hamilton said in his review of Adam
Apes and Anthropology, I proposed a solution, went out to see if the
evidence would support a humanity much older than widely beleived, and
it does. So don't tell me that nothing I have done is verifiable. Much
is. For years I spoke of small brained people having intelligence
equivalent to us. Last Fall with H. floresiensis, a small brained
hominid (chimp-sized brain) managed fire, managed to make stone tools
and hunt pygmy elephants as well as likely had a language. And they were
descended from H. erectus. That IS verification of my views. I proposed
that humanity goes way back. In H. Floresiensis, we have proof that a
lineage directly descended from H. erectus had human traits, meaning
that the common ancestor had those same traits. Humanity is now proven
to be at least 2 million years old. That IS verification of my views.
And given that the brain size of H. floresiensis is smaller than the
Australopithecines, it is not out of the realm of possibility now that
Adam was a Pith! Please Pay attention.
 
In other words, your claim that Genesis shows that the God of the Bible
has communicated at some level how he created the universe simply isn't
true.
[Glenn Morton]
 
I actually haven't spoken about the universe. I have said that God needs
to say something real about the universe in the creation story (or
inspire the writer to say it.) Let the EARTH bring forth grass, is a
true statement about how grass got here. The earth (ultimately) evolved
grass. So your claim above is false. Q.E.D.
 
 
 
  Genesis doesn't tell us about the big bang, MWB, condensation of the
solar system from interstellar material, or biological evolution. (It
does speak about mediated creation of life, thus opening up onessibility
for us to think theologically about evolution, but that's another
matter.) So even if it were necessary to have the kind of proof you
want about the how of these matters, Genesis doesn't give it to you.
[Glenn Morton]
 
As I have said many times and you continually ignore, you don't have to
have it say everything. Why is it that we have to cover this same issue
every time we debate? Why, George? It isn't all that hard to know that
God doesn't have to vomit every detail about the universe to show that
He is God. But one or two facts would kinda be nice you know.
 
 But Genesis must say something real. It doesn't have to talk about
molecular forces (I have said this till I am blue in the face and have
to write in blue ink!) Otherwise in what way is it better than the
Bhagadvagitas? Don't tell me as you have before, that it is because its
theology is better. That is a totally subjective statement based upon
your whimsey of what theology you think is better. It isn't better if
Hinduism is correct and the Bible pure farce!
 
(& even if it did, this would provide no way of distinguishing between
Christianity, Judaism & Islam.)
[Glenn Morton]
So? I didn't say it would. Can you tell me where I said this? But it
would narrow the range, now wouldn't it? Falsifying this creation
account would rule out three religions as well, wouldn't that means we
could go look for the truth elsewhere?
 
3d, while I don't think this is very important in the present context, I
think you've been rather uncritical in accepting the claims of your
source about Mithraism. That's a religion that I happen to know
something about & while there are indeed significant similarities, the
list you give overstates them.
[Glenn Morton]
 
Fine, correct the errors. But the plain fact is that you can't be
logical and say CHRISTIANITY IS CORRECT, when you never allow for the
possibility that it might be wrong. That is my main point. If the only
religion you allow to be true becomes the only religion with the
'correct' theology, then you have a perfectly circular epistemology. It
is true and thus it has the correct theology. It has the correct
theology thus it is true. Something must break out of this circle
because one can make the same statement about any religion you chose.
 
Animism is true and thus it has the correct theology. Animism has the
correct theology thus it is true. Tell me why I should not be an
animist? It is the same circularity for each and every religion. You
escape that ciruclarity only by assuming there is zero possibility for
any of the others to be true and so, you ignore their existence in your
apologetic which you try to rest in Christ alone, while ignoring the
fact that there is a larger world of choices out there. It is a great
apologetic for an entirely Christian audience. But then, if you
substitute Hinduism in the above, it quickly becomes a great apologetic
for an entirely Hindu audience. Wow, what erudition and clarity.
 
  & there are also significant differences - the most important for our
present purpose being that few scholars today would deny that Jesus ever
lived while even fewer would claim that Mithra - or for that matter
Attis or Horus - did live.
[Glenn Morton]
 
I happen to know a few people who do deny Jesus lived. And even if he
did live it doesn't automatically follow that he is the Son of God.
Lots of people lived so that is hardly a sufficient qualification for
status as the Son of God!Few people doubt that Zoroaster lived. and few
doubt Caligula lived. But they are not the Son of God.
 
 
 
4th, I could paraphrase your statement "If a god is clueless about how
the world is created, then he isn't THE God" with "If a god is clueless
about the ultimate structure of matter [or whatever scientific issue you
wish], then he isn't THE God." Then I could start doing my own
eisegesis by trying to find the electron in Heb.11:3 (Rimmer) or the
strong nuclear interaction in Col.1:17 - & you would justifiably
ridicule me.
[Glenn Morton] [Glenn Morton]
 
Why do you make such a silly argument. Who has said that God must reveal
the GUT in order to prove he is God? I certainly haven't. As I said, God
doesn't have to reveal every detail (or rather vomit out every detail),
but he must reveal enough to know that he is the true God. Otherwise, we
have fideism, pure and simple. You have not denied that charge. Do you
accept that epistemologically that is where you are when one broadens
the view to include more religions than Christianity?
 
 
Received on Sun Apr 3 23:52:35 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 23:52:36 EDT