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

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 09:10:05 EDT

You got the last word. This computer with this email is about to be
disassembled for shipment to China. I will use my wifes new computer
for a couple of days, but things are really busy.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:25 AM
> To: Glenn Morton; 'asa'
> Subject: Re: Mu (Was Re: CT article: Darwinists, not
> Christians, stonewalling the facts)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
> To: "'George Murphy'" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "'asa'" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 9:29 PM
> Subject: RE: Mu (Was Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians,
> stonewalling the facts)
>
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 6:35 PM
> >>
> >
> >> Sure, today. But Gen.1 was written ~2600 years ago &
> it's just
> >> wrong to insist on shoehorning it into modern categories.
> >
> > But of course, George, you are ruling out the entire point. Unless
> > life got here by some other means than evolution, one would
> hope that
> > the Deity knew he evolved things and could somehow have
> indicated that
> > to the poor slob who was being inspired to write the account.
> >
> > If it doesn't fit what accually happened, which by
> DEFINITION MUST be
> > a modern category because scientific understanding is MODERN and
> > decidedly so, then it won't fit the task I am trying to see
> > accomplished. Of course it must be a modern category.. That is the
> > entire point!!!!!
>
> I never said that you couldn't shoehorn evolution into the
> text but that
> proves nothing. Surely you can see that to say:
>
> In order to be a true communication from God, it must say
> something
> about modern scientific understanding.
> I can read some element of modern science into the text.
> Therefore the text is a communication from God,
>
> just doesn't work.
>
> ..............................
>
> >> Of course we can't prove that any historical event - in
> the Bible or
> >> elsewhere - happened in the same way we prove a math theorem. But
> >> there are different degrees of conviction that intelligent & honest
> >> people can have
> >> about putative historical events. We "know" that Lincoln was
> >> shot in Ford's
> >> Theater & we're quite sure that the tale of Washington & the
> >> cherry tree
> >> didn't happen. It's simply perverse to suggest, e.g., that
> >> claims that
> >> Jesus was crucified under Pilate have no more historical
> >> support than the
> >> your speculative story of a 5.5 Myr Adam.
> >
> > Sorry, George, sometimes I don't think you do pay
> attention. It isn't
> > the crucifiction which is important. Who cares if the guy was
> > crucified.
>
> Thanks for trying to tell me what I think but I prefer my own
> way of putting
> it. In the article to which I referred a couple of posts ago
> I said that my
> most basic claim was, "The most profound understanding of
> life and the
> universe is to be found in the suffering and death of Jesus
> of Nazareth."
> In fact I've said that over & over here & have written a book
> titled _The
> Cosmos in the Light of the CROSS_ so it's hard to see why
> you've missed the
> point so badly. And then at the end of the short paper I
> explained why I
> had waited to say anything about the resurrection. You have
> failed to
> understand my whole theological approach.
>
> Of course the resurrection is important: I have certainly
> never denied
> that. Inter alia, it shows precisely that the one who was
> crucified is
> Lord. & it's only because the disciples believed that the
> crucified one was
> risen that we know about the crucifixion of Jesus. But as I
> said quite
> clearly, it's the cross which is where a theology of the
> cross begins.
> (Surprise!) Until you get the priorities straight you will
> never understand
> what I'm talking about - if you want to. There's a reason
> why it's called a
> theology of the CROSS.
>
> Who cares if "the guy" was crucified? Perhaps nobody if he's
> just a generic
> "guy." The fact that it's _Jesus_ who was crucified makes
> some difference
> though.
> I can go into much more detail but until your willing to
> admit that I know
> what my own theological psoition is there's little point.
>
> > It is the resurrection which has much less evidence for it
> than even
> > the crucificition. We know that Spartacus and others were
> crucified.
> > None of them resurrected. I would say the actual
> historical support
> > for the resurrection is less than for my speculative story
> about Adam.
>
> This is ridiculous. The claim of the resurrection is something that
> putatively happened in an identifiable place to an
> identifiable person at an
> identifiable time.
> We have documents written with a few decades of the supposed
> event that
> claim to give immediate reports of the empty tomb &
> appearances of the risen
> Christ, & we know something about the effect that belief in
> the resurrection
> had on the development of a Christian community. Of course
> all those things
> don't prove it happened but there's real material that real
> historians can
> make use of in evaluating the claim. None of those things
> exists in the
> slightest degree for your speculative Adam story (except
> perhaps that it can
> be "pinned down" to within a few hundred thousand years). In fact it
> doesn't even exist as an historical claim except in the mind
> & writings of
> Glenn Morton.
>
>
> > I have all sorts of geological data telling me that the
> Mediterranean
> > was dry. What do you have for the resurrection? A video? Come on!
>
> Again you are confusing a geological scenario with your claim
> that anything
> like the story of Noah was associated with it.
>
> > If you wish you
> >> can go down at
> >> midnight to the coal cellar & claim that all cats are black but
> >> include me out.
> >
> > Why don't you deal with the real issues rather than talking about
> > cats. The fact is you start with the resurrection. There is no
> > extrabiblical evidence for the resurrection. All of those accounts
> > were written by people who had axes to grind and were written many
> > years after the event. While I believe the resurrection, I have no
> > real evidence for it and neither do you. So when you start
> with your
> > apologetic at the resurrection, you start from a fideist
> position. One
> > that is more fideist than my position.
>
> You're not very good with metaphors, are you? Even with
> unoriginal ones.
> The point of the cat metaphor is that you try to make all historical
> events - or at least all that might be connected with the
> Bible - equally
> unverifiable so that you can make silly claims like the one
> above. I don't
> buy it & I don't think anyone else will either.
>
> >
> > At least I know:
> >
> > The mediterranean was dry and re-filled.
> > Hominids appeared on earth just around the time of this event. They
> > were small brained but small brained hominids were capable
> of higher
> > cognitive processes. I know that there was a 48->46
> chromosome fusion
> > event I know that these events are common in mammalian
> evolution but
> > are often debilitating. But it occurs in rat evolution, equine
> > evolution, canine evolution etc.
> > I know that human behavior including things which look like
> religion go
> > back at least 800 kyr meaning that humanity was capable of
> spirituality
> > at least that far back and maybe further given that few things are
> > preserved from those early ages--especially wood and fiber.
> >
> >
> > What do you KNOW about the resurrection upon which you start your
> > apologetic?
>
> There's no point in answering this because the resurrection
> _didn't_ start
> my apologetic, as I explained above.
>
>
> >> This is intriguingly close to the standard ID argument:
> Somehow our
> >> ancestral line went from 48 to 46 chromosomes & we don't
> understand
> >> how that happened so it was a miracle.
> >
> > Oh that is so ridiculous, George. You should be ashamed of
> this one. I
> > have never said such an idiotic thing. I know some things that you
> > seem not to care to know. Note the asterisked part.
> ............................
> >
> > Now, these things occur quite naturally. The only reason I hold to
> > the miraculous during the fusion is to match the Biblical
> record. So,
> > George, it is NOT a case of 'we don't understand it thus it
> must be a
> > miracle.' How stupid, how ill-informed of you! And it
> disappoints me
> > in you.
>
> I accept your gentle rebuke, something made easier by the
> fact that, as I
> noted, I claim no expertise in this area. & I'm sorry to have
> misinterpreted your argument. I now see that it's WORSE than the ID
> argument. They at least can point to things that science hasn't yet
> explained (or that they think it hasn't). You can't, so
> there's no reason
> to say that this event didn't happen by natural processes.
>
> Oh, except that we want to "match the Biblical record."
> Except that the
> biblical record says nothing at all about God resuscitating a mutant
> stillborn apelike infant. That exists only in your fanciful
> figurative
> interpretation of Genesis.
>
> So I will stand revealed as stupid & ill-informed. It's not
> the first time.
> & you can stand revealed as purveying a completely empty and baseless
> argument for the historicity of Genesis 2.
>
> .....................
>
> >> That isn't science, it's theology. But I'm glad to see
> you accepting
> >> my description of it.
> >
> > No, I don't. You seem to be reading things that aren't
> written. If
> > God uses mediate creation, almost by necessity, he must use
> physical
> > objects, which then places one in the position of having
> the physical
> > universe create life. That, my friend, is NOT theology, but
> > abiogenesis!
>
> I called it mediated creation, you said it wasn't & then used
> the term. Now
> you say you don't accept it. Let me know one way or another.
>
> Theology is the logos about theos - about God. To say that
> God creates
> mediately is to make a theological, not a scientific,
> statement. To say
> that the sun shines because of fusion reactions is natural
> science. To say
> that the sun shines because God makes it do so via whatever natural
> processes science leads us to think are going on is theology.
> (That's an
> anaology BTW.)
>
> >> > And that means that apologetically we have to find grounding in
> >> > reality. Most YECs understand this. Most OEC's don't.
> >>
> >> Yes, that where my theological argument begins. But it is
> based on
> >> historical claims about Jesus, claims that can be evaluated by
> >> historical & literary means without making that theological
> >> assumption.
> >
> > I sincerely doubt you have no theological assumption. You
> assume there
> > is a god, you assume theism rather than animism etc etc
> etc. Those are
> > theological assumptions. They certainly aren't scientific
> assumptions.
>
> >> But how much better is your argument?
> >
> > It doesn't hide the assumptions I make and then I don't
> claim I am not
> > making theological assumptions.
> >
> >
> > You claim to find
> >> support for the
> >> claim that that the God that Genesis talks about is the true God
> >> because in the Bible he revealed some things about how the
> world came
> >> into being. But
> >> where did you get the idea that a "God" is communicating
> >> anything in the
> >> Bible?
> >
> > Well, George, if he isn't communicating anything, then the
> whole thing
> > is farce. That is what I am trying to determine with my
> approach. Did
> > God communicate anything. If not, then all your basis in your
> > non-theological, theological assumptions is worthless.
>
> I thought I made the point clear but apparently not. The
> question isn't
> just whether God is COMMUNICATING something but whether there
> is a GOD who
> is doing anything at all, communicating or not. You think
> you're showing
> both by your claims of supposed historicity but the way you
> set up the
> question and what you're willing to accept as historicity
> show that the
> result was foreordained. I think you're the one who's hiding
> assumptions. ................................
> >> You've
> >> just started with
> >> the traditional idea that the God of Israel inspired the
> Bible & then
> >> come up with a couple of things that you think support that idea.
> >> But others -
> >> atheists, those of other religions - can explain those things
> >> without your
> >> assumption.
> >
> > NO, I didn't start there. I actually was into eastern religions
> > before I became a Christian, but then I was also into
> demonology. I
> > have moved from YEC to OEC. I hope that the Bible can be
> interpreted
> > in a way that makes it real. But, george, I have always said, over
> > and over, that if the Bible can't have any reality in it, I will
> > reject it. Why would I believe something that I believe to
> be false
> > or fideistic? That is the importance of my program.
>
> When I referred to your "starting" I meant what your program
> actually begins
> with, not where your religious journey took you.
>
> >> Yeah, it was a short communication (originally a paper I
> gave at an
> >> ASA meeting). But I should have thought that the extension was
> >> fairly obvious.
> >
> > Not if you epistemologically start at the resurrection.
> Historically
> > there isn't the support for it that you seem to assume.
>
> But I don't. Much of what you've written here (& previously)
> is rendered
> pointless by this misunderstanding.
>
> > Good luck with your upcoming grandchild. Being a grandfather is
> > wonderful. I am now one twice over.
>
> This will be our 2d, plus 3 step-grandkids.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 7 09:10:11 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 07 2005 - 09:10:12 EDT