RE: [asa] Re: Slug

For David and Iain and Michael Roberts

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:53 AM
>
> Glenn,
> I didn't say you thought like a YEC. But you have pieces of a
> YEC mindset, and IMO you argue like a YEC fundamentalist.

Great, You were copied on a private note from Ed Babinski, an atheist. He
seems to think more like me. But on this list, the YEC label is much more
useful than the atheist label. And you ignore the counter data--something
you are charging me with below.

> Otherwise you would not be quoting astronomers as if they
> believed in a solid sphere around the earth. I can't imagine
> an atheist arguing that point. The heavens are all about us,
> so they use angular measurement in 3 dimensions. The only
> thing that puts a limit to the sphere is the distance that
> they can see, which is somewhat less than 13.7 Gltyr. But the
> total universe may be larger.

You too had the point zip right over your head. Obviously you didn't read
where I said that language constrains us and then gave lots and lots of
examples. What I was doing was a parody of your approach and amazingly, you
took it seriously. I would say that this illustrates the lack of
introspection and knowledge of your own position WRT raqiya and what it
looks like to others.

If you claim that raqiya must be taken literally in the Bible as a solid
dome (something I am not convinced is correct), then to be consistent you
must also claim that the astronomers, when they use words, are teaching the
literal meanings of those words. But of course, consistency isn't something
useful to your position.

>
> Seems to me that you are impervious to all evidences that do
> not fit your view, which makes me wonder how geology
> persuaded you to abandon YEC.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Getting desperate are we? Running out of arguments?
You still haven't said you were wrong When you said that the depth of the
lip of the Gibraltar had to be constant over the past 5 million years and
couldn't have been deeper in the past. You still haven't said you were
wrong when I pointed out that Gibraltar wasn't even there 5 million years
ago.

You haven't admitted you were wrong when you charged me with saying:
>>>"You claim that scripture must be true throughout. <<<<
 
I told you you couldn't find me saying that. What I want is some
observational support. That is different from saying that it must be true
throughout (I don't want you pulling out that irrelevant Lord is my shepard
thing), but you have not acknowledge the counter data. Live what you
preach!

&&
Iain wrote:

>Glenn, I think you perhaps missed the deliberate irony in my choice of the
word "porkies". I'm sorry to have allowed my
>rather too British sense of humour to obscure the point I was making. I do
not think that "metaphor" = "porky".

I don't either think metaphor = porkie, but, historically no one thought
Genesis 1-9 was a poem until science started pointing out the porkies it
contained. Then suddenly the account was said to be a poem. Even George
Murphy has noted that prior to the advent of modern science there was no
reason not to take Genesis as history. So, while that might not have been
your point, it certainly does illustrate the conundrum we are all in. The
game changed with the advent of modern science precisely to avoid the
problems. Today, whether people know this or not, it doesn't matter. For
1500+ years people took Genesis as having happened.

 If I say
>someone has green fingers, then I'm not telling a lie, though sure as
anything I've never seen anyone who actually had green
>fingers (well .. maybe on Star Trek but that doesn't count..)

I agree with you. But since I can't find anyone in the ancient times who
holds the modern view of Genesis so widely held on this list, it makes me
question whether the hymn to creation is really there or there by necessity
so the thing isn't false by the bucket loads.

>Or if you say "The view of the White House is .." it doesn't mean
>that a building literally has an opinion. It's simply not the case that
only in poetry can you get away with metaphors that aren't
>literally true.

The thing that is needed, is proof that everyone 2000 years ago believed
Genesis wasn't history and wasn't to be taken historically. Given that the
History of the Jews, by Josephus starts with the creation, it was taken has
history. I see the same view in the Talmud.

To Michael Roberts,

As I said to you early on with the slug question. I have seen you over the
years demand that David Tyler answer questions and then you say choice words
to him about his failure to answer. But the fact that you too have
questions you won't answer, means you do not have the moral authority any
longer to demand YECs answer questions you want them to answer. It is a
shame you can't climb down and answer like others on this list.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 17 17:50:31 2006