Holding their feet to the fire ...

[Jorge]

Sadly we've all seen Jorge in action for years. His position has always been "Jorge is right because Jorge says he is right". That's never gonna change, evidence be damned.

Hey, it's not Saturday so what the heck is Beagle Boy doing out of his cage?

Jorge

[Jesse]

Doesn't look like it. I suggest a second reading of my previous posts. Invariably it is the BIBLE that gets distorted and so I don't see where you get that "... or both are distorted". I also don't know what you mean by "pigeonholed". I had defined "distort" very clearly.

I was asking if you thought Evolution and the Bible are both distorted in the eyes of a Theistic Evolutionist. And so that would be the only way they could make it compatible. But It looks like you just meant the Bible only.

The Bible says nothing about Evolution, as you say, but the inference you speak of must be consistent with an UNDISTORTED reading of the Bible. If you or I have unrestrained liberty to interpret (and by that distort) what is written then we can pretty much make it say whatever we want it to say. This is what Theistic Evolutionists do.

But I don't see how the inference can be seen as a distortion. It's merely a hypothesis with regard to the topic of the text. For the text to be distorted, I would need to apply it falsely or misleadingly. Which I don't think I am?

Refer back to what I wrote. I try to be as precise as possible when writing about these things (unless I state otherwise) but of course that doesn't mean that I could not do better. I put the word "are" between quotes in my previous post. What I meant by that is that the same chemical elements that we ingest are what make up our material body. That much is indisputable. As to the percentage of these elements that is present, you seem fixated on something that is simply not true. Not all soil contains the same proportion of the elements. The soil in my back yard, for instance has much more silica ('sand') than rich bottom soil of Tennessee farmland.

I don't think I am fixated on anything really. I am just responding to what you are writing. Yes, the chemical elements that we ingest are also in our bodies. But what we eat does not change our chemical elements on a molecular level. I thought that is what you were saying. Sorry if I was wrong about that. I didn't say that all soil contains the same proportions. Soil, the main elements of it, are also in all mammals. It is of course the reason why humans have many genetic elements you see in vegetation. You would expect to see those things if we all came from the earth. That really was my only point.

No problem - I enjoy a worthwhile chat. It's when it ceases being that where I have a problem.

I think our chat has been worthwhile. But, you let me know when you no longer think so.

[Jesse]

Sadly we've all seen Jorge in action for years. His position has always been "Jorge is right because Jorge says he is right". That's never gonna change, evidence be damned.

You may very well be right. But I think so far it's been pleasant.

[klaus54]

And this being the case, the only way to get the bible to fit those samples is to distort either the samples or the bible. Jorge is quite right about this.

What sometimes puzzles me is the determination that many people have, to both accept what we have learned about our universe through our own diligent efforts, AND accept the infallible truth of their bible. Why not simply observe that the bible is a reflection of the beliefs and superstitions of intelligent and creative but less informed people thousands of years ago?

Every issue of Science News has a column picking something scientists thought 50 years ago, and what they think today. The difference lies in the continued accumulation of evidence AND the scientific willingness to honor the evidence. Would that religion could do the same.

"infalliable" is a fundy jargon term -- used by all stripes of fundies.

Bible interpretation in a cultural/historical ANE context together with literary criticism ameliorates many of these "problems".

Since fundy atheists and fundy Christians use the same Bible interpretation, it's only natural that the Jorges/JordanRivers/"Mr. Blacks" of Christendom so vehemently defend their long-since scientifically falsifiable interpretation, else they have no choice but to jump ship to full-blown faith-mocking atheist.

Quite simple actually.

And sad in both cases.

K54

[klaus54]

I am hoping that is not how he comes to his conclusions. I am still trying to figure out exactly what is being said though.

Good luck with that, Jesse.

And there's no sarcasm intended....

K54

[oxmixmudd]

Jorge,

Jesus said he was coming back soon. By your approach to scripture, He was lying.


Jim

[Jorge]

Jorge,

Jesus said he was coming back soon. By your approach to scripture, He was lying.

Jim

No! By your MISREPRESENTATION of my approach to Scripture Jesus would be "lying". But I've already written about such dishonest misrepresentations. Heck, by misrepresenting me (as you often do) you can make it appear that I've said just about anything you wish.

Back under the rock you go!

Jorge

[Jorge]

You may very well be right. But I think so far it's been pleasant.

Awwwww ... and you had been doing so well.

Why would you even seriously consider, let alone reply, to anything that Beagle "Blabbermouth" Boy says?

Oh well, it's your right to do so, I guess.

Jorge

[Jesse]

Awwwww ... and you had been doing so well.

Why would you even seriously consider, let alone reply, to anything that Beagle "Blabbermouth" Boy says?

Oh well, it's your right to do so, I guess.

Jorge

Jorge. You should not consider that a knock against you. I have no problems with anyone here. Like I said, it has been pleasant talking with you. Please don't hold someone else's opinion of you as a statement of agreement on my end. I have responded to many things HMS_Beagle has said. We all are not going to agree on everything.

[Omniskeptical]

Hitler also rejected the idea that mankind evolved from lower animals.

No, just apes.

[klaus54]

No! By your MISREPRESENTATION of my approach to Scripture Jesus would be "lying". But I've already written about such dishonest misrepresentations. Heck, by misrepresenting me (as you often do) you can make it appear that I've said just about anything you wish.

Back under the rock you go!

Jorge

Jim's correct.

According to any First Century A.D. interpretation of "soon", Jesus WOULD be lying.

So, Jorge -- are you calling Jesus a liar?

Or can you contort "soon" to mean the same thing to the Apostles as it does to us 21st Century kool kats?

Now look in a mirror and apply the same logic to the notion of the Genesis stories and Deep Time.

K54

[Jorge]

I was asking if you thought Evolution and the Bible are both distorted in the eyes of a Theistic Evolutionist. And so that would be the only way they could make it compatible. But It looks like you just meant the Bible only.

It has been my long experience that INVARIABLY when something has to be changed it is the BIBLE that takes the 'hit' (gets distorted) so that it 'agrees' with the decrees of the "scientific establishment". If you have a counter-example to that claim, especially when Evolution is involved, then please provide it.

But I don't see how the inference can be seen as a distortion. It's merely a hypothesis with regard to the topic of the text. For the text to be distorted, I would need to apply it falsely or misleadingly. Which I don't think I am?

Refer back to the word "distortion" - defined several posts ago. It's definitely a distortion because now the Bible is forced to say something that it doesn't say when using proper exegesis / hermeneutics. In addition, the distortion propagates throughout the rest of Scripture so that now other Bible verses must ALSO be distorted (again, refer to the definition of that term) in order to make it into a pseudo-consistent text. When that doesn't work simply eliminate some of the text altogether! In case you didn't know, many Theistic Evolutionists do exactly that by 'tossing out' Genesis 1 through 11 in various ways.

This case is air-tight and rock-solid. The only question is if you're willing to accept it.

I don't think I am fixated on anything really. I am just responding to what you are writing. Yes, the chemical elements that we ingest are also in our bodies. But what we eat does not change our chemical elements on a molecular level. I thought that is what you were saying. Sorry if I was wrong about that. I didn't say that all soil contains the same proportions. Soil, the main elements of it, are also in all mammals. It is of course the reason why humans have many genetic elements you see in vegetation. You would expect to see those things if we all came from the earth. That really was my only point.

Looks like a minor misunderstanding (on both our parts) that is now cleared up.

I think our chat has been worthwhile. But, you let me know when you no longer think so.

I will be sure to do that.

Jorge

[klaus54]

No, just apes.

Humans ARE apes, just like humans are primates, and humans are mammals, chordates, animals, eukarya.

And BIG DEAL what Hitler thought about anything.

He was a vegetarian and loved his dog.

K54

[Roy]

With that caveat, the answer to your question is summarized with two points:

First, it is not "MY" belief - it is what the Special Revelation of God (aka the Bible) tells us. If (IF!) we hold that the Bible is from God and that God said what He meant and meant what He said then if we are to be honest and faithful we really have no choice in the matter. Needless to say, people have distorted God's Word (they have to!) so as to accommodate (force-fit!) their own beliefs. That's where you see all of the other stuff (such as Theistic Evolution) entering into the picture.

Second, the thing that makes it impossible (and, by the way, "impossible" is the correct word) for God and Evolution(1) to go hand in hand once again has to do with God's Special Revelation (His Word, the Bible). The Bible tells us some things about history and about God's character. Those things that we learn are incompatible with Evolution because there are inconsistencies galore. To remedy these inconsistencies we once again find the creativity of people concocting all manner of philosophies and alternate interpretations that distort reality and God's Word so as to 'shoe-horn' God into Evolution into God. One immediate example is that the entire history of creation must be changed from what is narrated in Scripture. However, the plain and simple fact is that without that 'shoe-horn' no one can make God (the God that is revealed in His Word) compatible with Evolution. Countless distortions and contortions are needed to make that happen.

(1) the 'E' in Evolution has to do with what I've written about often here on TWeb - another topic.

Well, that's clear. God and Evolution are incompatible because (i) the bible and Evolution are incompatible, and (ii) the bible and Evolution are incompatible.

Now, how about some support for the claim that "The point is that those Atheists that ARE pro-death will use Evolution as "scientific" justification for their position."?

Roy

[Jorge]

Jorge. You should not consider that a knock against you. I have no problems with anyone here. Like I said, it has been pleasant talking with you. Please don't hold someone else's opinion of you as a statement of agreement on my end. I have responded to many things HMS_Beagle has said. We all are not going to agree on everything.

True, total agreement on all points is near-impossible and I wasn't expecting that.
I was just highlighting a point: figuratively, if Beagle Boy tells you that 2 + 3 = 5, be sure
to pull out your calculator and check it out before accepting his statement. That's all.

Jorge