Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

*You claim that Adam is neolithic*

This is what I mean about listening, Glenn. I said no such thing; I've said
over and over that I agree with you that I don't think Adam has to be
neolithic; and indeed, I think the prinicple of accomodation can help
explain the anachronisms in where the Bible seems to locate Adam in time.
But no matter.

On 3/17/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
> David O. wrote:
> >Exactly. We are all connected, as the Bible suggests. This supports my
> idea it doesn't weaken it. I don't claim to
> >know who THE Adam & Eve were, except that the Bible says there were such
> people.
> >
> >Unfortunately, this is as pointless as it always seems to be. You don't
> listen, you don't care to dialogue, you just
> >want to diatribe. Have at it.
> All I am asking is that if you say something supports your view, that it
> actually does support your view. You claim that Adam is neolithic, and then
> you say we are descended genealogically but not genetically from him. The
> problem is that the time to the MRCA (most recent common ancestor), which
> you had said was Adam, is actually 2000 years ago and that means you have
> the wrong time, yet you claim that this supports your view--it doesn't.
>
> Secondly, as to listening, so long as you equate the words 'listening',
> with 'agreeing with you', then I guess I will be guilty of said charge. I
> argued my case from your assumption, that Adam was the MRCA and he can't be
> if Adam is neolithic. I can't change the logic and I cant change the facts,
> so don't get mad at me for merely pointing out what contradictions you have
> in your assertions.
> **
> Michael Roberts wrote:
> >I have been following this discussion with despair.
> >
> >However we take Genesis there is simply not enough information there to
> draw parallels with palaeoanthropology or
> >the date and location of the Flood. All attempts to do so have been found
> to be chasing after wind.
> >
> >It is best to say "we don't know"
>
> Michael, I don't want to send you off again following me around the
> internet posting nasty little notes about me, but frankly, scientists
> shouldn't believe that which is not real. I mean, isn't science supposed to
> be about that which is real? So, if we are dealing in science/theology, but
> the science is supposed to be irrelevant to the problem, then why have this
> forum at all? What is the purpose of it if science is not supposed to say
> anything to the Bible and the Bible is not supposed to say anything to
> science?
>
> And if we don't know, what happened, because we can't trust anything in
> Genesis, why not start a movement to de-cannonize it? If it is such a bad
> thing, get rid of the creation story and all these problems.
>
> As to chasing wind, one could have said that to Champolian before he broke
> the hieroglyphics. See, you have given up but you want everyone else to
> follow suit. Why, I don't know, unless you dont' wish to be proven wrong.
> If someone like me chases wind all one's life, what is it to you? Why does
> my demand for reality, which drives me in this area, bother you so much?
> Don't tell me that it is because the YECs are misled in this area, because
> your view certainly isn't going to fix that either.
>
> ****
>
> George M wrote in another thread;
> >Does the honorable gentleman not realize that the historical Tubalcain is
> the foundation of our faith?
>
> Typical arrogant, liberal knee-jerk reaction to anyone that disagrees with
> them. People claim that Tubalcain is neolithic, I provided alternative
> information along those lines and you, instead of dealing with what I
> presented and showing why the Hebrew phrase, 'brass and iron' doesn't mean
> what I give other biblical examples of it meaning, (rebellion), chose merely
> to go the irrational route and mock. Mocking might be fun, but at base it
> is anti-intellectual and school-boyish--and I might add, beneath you George.
>
> ***
> David O wrote in another post:
> >But OTOH, so what? Almost nothing about a concept such as IOG can be
> "ruled out." Again, all you're suggesting
> >is that I should prove a negative. I also can't "rule out" that there
> are space aliens somewhere that possess the IOG,
> >and that they dropped Adam and Eve off when they built the pyramids and
> Aztec temples. The Discovery Channel
> >has made a mint airing shows that suggest nutty stuff like this. But
> OTOH, I don't see any warrant at this point for
> >asserting affirmatively that any such thing is true, and the best and
> most coherent explanations rather strongly suggest
> >it isn't. The burden of proof remains on you, just as it remains on
> people who claim aliens built the pyramids.
>
> Well, I dont' know about space aliens and pyramids, but the IOG must do
> something useful other than be a name. And while I agree, that no one can
> PROVE what it is, one can offer interesting possibilities, and I think the
> things I have cited for it are quite possibly it. Immanuel Kant, in a
> passage I read two days ago says it quite well without using the words IOG,
> in this amazingly anti-evolutionary(but based upon the concept of a perfect
> creator), pre-Darwinian passage.
>
> "In the physical constitution of an organized being, that is, a being
> adapted suitably to the purposes of life, we assume it as a fundamental
> principle that no organ for any purpose will be found but what is also the
> fittest and best adapted for that purpose. Now in a being which has reason
> and a will, if the proper object of nature were its *conservation, *its *welfare,
> *in a word, its *happiness, *then nature would have hit upon a very bad
> arrangement in selecting the reason of the creature to carry out this
> purpose. For all the actions which the creature has to perform with a view
> to this purpose, and the whole rule of its conduct, would be far more surely
> prescribed to it by instinct, and that end would have been attained thereby
> much more certainly than it ever can be by reason. Should reason have been
> communicated to this favored creature over and above, it must only have
> served it to contemplate the happy constitution of its nature, [14] to
> admire it, to congratu­late itself thereon, and to feel thankful for it to
> the beneficent cause, but not that it should subject its desires to that
> weak and delusive guidance, and meddle bunglingly with the purpose of
> nature. In a word, nature would have taken care that reason should not break
> forth into *practical exercise, *nor have the presumption, with its weak
> insight, to think out for itself the plan of happiness and of the means of
> attaining it. Nature would not only have taken on herself the choice of the
> ends but also of the means, and with wise foresight would have entrusted
> both to instinct."
>
> "And, in fact, we find that the more a cultivated reason applies itself
> with deliberate purpose to the enjoyment of life and happiness, so much the
> more does the man fail of true satisfaction. And from this circumstance
> there arises in many, if they are candid enough to confess it, a certain
> degree of *misology, *that is, hatred of reason, especially in the case of
> those who are most experienced in the use of it, because after calculating
> all the advantages they derive--I do not say from the invention of all the
> arts of common luxury, but even from the sciences (which' seem to them to be
> after all only a luxury of the understanding)-they find that they have, in
> fact, only brought more trouble on their shoulders rather than gained in
> happiness; and they end by envying rather than despising the more common
> stamp of men who keep closer to the guidance of mere instinct, and do not
> allow their reason much influence on their conduct. And this we must admit,
> that the judgment of those who would very much lower the lofty eulogies of
> the advan­tages which reason gives us in regard to the happiness and
> satis­faction of life, or who would even reduce them below zero, is by no
> means morose or ungrateful to the goodness with which the world is governed,
> but that there lies at the root of these judgments the idea [15] that our
> existence has a different and far nobler end, for which, and not for
> happiness, reason is properly intended, and which must, therefore, be
> regarded as the supreme condition to which the private ends of man must, for
> the most part, be post­poned." Immanuel Kant, *Fundamental Principles of
> the Metaphysics of Morals*, Transl. By Thomas K. Abbott, (Indianapolis:
> The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1949), p. 12-14
>
> In other words, reason is something God gave us for a higher purpose.
> Reason is what gives rise to all the other things, religion, art, etc which
> we often associate with the IOG.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> glenn
> They're Here: The Pathway Papers
> Foundation, Fall, and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2007 11:07 PM
> *To:* George Murphy
> *Cc:* Glenn Morton; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists
>
> *This means that the most recent common ancestor
> of all six billion people on earth today probably lived just a couple
> of thousand years ago. And not long before that the majority of the
> people on the planet were the direct ancestors of everyone alive
> today. Confucius, Nefertiti, and just about any other ancient
> historical figure who was even moderately prolific must today be
> counted among everyone's ancestors." Steve Olson, "The Royal We," Atlantic
>
> Monthly, May 2002
>
> Olson is a geneticist. This is clearly NOT within the time frame you
> want.
> And if 3000 years ago, EVERYONE on earth is our ancestor, who one earth is
> Adam and Eve? Which one of those 50 million is THE Adam and Eve? *
>
>
>
> On 3/16/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> >
> > Comments below in brackets {}.
> >
> > Shalom
> > George
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > ***
> >
> > George M wrote:
> >
> > [GLM No, I meant what I said. I introduced Wells as 1 example of a
> > scientists whose claims for a recent origin of humanity doesn't appear
> > to be
> >
> > motivated by religious concerns. The extent to which I'm qualified to
> > debate the issue is irrelevant. Your license to practice distance
> > psychoanalysis is suspended.]
> >
> > Aw shucks, shrinks make such good money. But, I can analyze your
> > statement
> > above. Wells DOESN'T claim a recent origin of humanity. You are doing
> > what
> > you said YECs do. You are making Christians look ill-informed by missing
> > what Wells is saying. I tried to point out your error, but you are now
> > persisting in saying what Wells isn't saying. The age of the Y
> > chromosome
> > is not the age of humanity, no matter how much you or I might wish it to
> > be
> > so. It just represents the age of the lucky guy whose chromosome was the
> > most widespread. Go back 10,000 years and there would have been some
> > humans
> > who didn't have that guy's y-chromsome but there probably would have
> > been
> > some other guy dated 80 or 90,000 years ago, from whome all y
> > chromosomes
> > were descended at that time. The y-chromosome Adam is a moving target.
> > 5000
> > years hence, it will be a guy who lived 55,000 years ago or so.
> >
> > If you don't understand this, then you are out of your depth here.
> >
> > {GLM From the program for Wells talk at Kent State - Stark, 1 March
> > '07:
> > "Wells analyzed DNA from thousands of men living in isolated populations
> > and
> > concluded that all humans can be traced to an African tribe that existed
> > 60,000 years ago." Does that mean that all humans descended from _only_
> >
> > that tribe? No. Does that in turn mean that the origin of humanity
> > can't
> > be placed at ~60,000 years? That of course depends on how one is
> > defining
> > "humanity."
> >
> > I won't pursue this further here because it would lead you to claim that
> > I
> > have some stake in a recent origin of humanity, which I don't. More on
> > this
> > below. & also more on being out of one's depth.}
> >
> > [GLM You make wild claims & then pass by in silence the demonstrations
> >
> > that they're false. What I refuted here was the claim that people are
> > arguing that the creation accounts are poetic and therefore CANNOT (not
> > do
> > not or may not) convey truth about the natural world - i.e., that the
> > very
> > nature of poetry precludes the possibility of conveying such truth.]
> >
> > George, I want to laugh here. I cited Jan de Konig who argued that it
> > was
> > poetic, and you didn't respond to that, effectively ignoring it, and
> > then
> > charge me with ignoring facts that falsify your claims.
> >
> > If you believe that the Genesis accounts are telling us something true
> > historically, then it should be easy for you to answer the question,
> > what,
> > exactly is it telling us about history. I asked that simple question
> > but
> > got the diversion above about me not answering your comments. If you
> > believe it is historical, then what is historical. If you can't tell us
> > that, then I doubt your assertion above is nothing but a red herring.
> >
> > 1st, Jan didn't say that the account_s_ were poetic, which was your
> > claim.
> > But that's minor. More to the point was your claim that someone is
> > saying
> > "poetic, THEREFORE not conveying truth about the natural
> > world." Whether or
> > not I think it does convey any such truth is not the point. Someone may
> > think it doesn't simply because he thinks the accounts disagree with the
> > historical & scientific data or because of the difference between the 2
> > accounts, but that doesn't mean he's reaching that conclusion simply
> > because
> > one or the other account is "poetic."
> >
> > This is a small error on your part which could easily be attributed to
> > hyperbole on your part & it would be easy enough to corrent it. Why
> > don't
> > you? Or do you just not understand the distinctions?
> >
> > When you wrote:
> > [GLM Again you ignore the refutation of your 1st extravagant claim & go
> > on
> > to a 2d. Your claim was that theologians never want to think anything
> > new &
> >
> > I pointed out that that's nonsense.]
> >
> > I went back and looked for some kind of refutation. I simply don't know
> > what
> > the heck you are referring to. What did you refute. What 1st extravagant
> > claim are you referring to?
> >
> > {GLM That theologians never want to think anything new. Not a direct
> > quote but you said (on either the 10th or the 11th - I've omitted the
> > original but it's in my reply of the 11th) "They do if one refuses to
> > think
> > anything new or novel about the accounts. They fit together quite
> > nicely
> > within my interpretation, but, of course,
> > theology wouldn't really want to think anything new, now would we?"}
> >
> > As the the second, I see theologians only thinking along lines of, it
> > tells
> > us YEC history or it tells us nothing that we can claim to be
> > observationally verifiable. If you can point me to theologians who
> > believe
> > that the Bible is telling us something observationally verifiable while
> > at
> > the same time accepting the facts of modern science, I would be
> > interested.
> > Even the framework theory in my opinion doesn't fall out side of the 'it
> >
> > ain't history' school of thought. But your claims that there are new
> > ways
> > of thinking are easy to make, but harder to document especially if you
> > see
> > the world with the division I do.
> >
> > {GLM No, what you said in your last post was an even more restrained
> > condemnation of theologians without qualification: "And theologians on
> > a
> > daily basis show utter contempt for science by ignoring it or saying
> > things
> > about science which aren't true and then acting like one is an idiot to
> > challenge them on it--this even if the theologian hasn't studied the
> > area."
> > No qualifications, no "some theologians," many theologians," even less
> > names
> > of any specific theologians. No recognition that there are any
> > theologians
> > who know anything about science and/or are careful to talk to those who
> > do.
> >
> > What you display is an "utter contempt" for both theology and
> > theologians -
> > without any distinction among them. Which wouldn't be quite so bad if
> > you
> > gave any indication that you knew anything about theology beyond the
> > most
> > simplistic "the Bible must be true" claims.
> >
> > There is another point worth making here if you're able to listen. Your
> > accusations against "theologians" are far too extreme but it's certainly
> > true that many theologians - & I include parish pastors there - aren't
> > as
> > well informed scientifically as they should be. That's precisely one
> > reason
> > why a great deal of my ministry is devoted to seminary teaching, leading
> > workkshops for clergy, writing for clergy & theological jornals &c about
> > such matters. m& that should explain why I spend little time in direct
> > debate with atheists: One can't do everything. I don't deny the
> > importance
> > of confronting atheist & other anti-Christian arguments, but not
> > everyone is
> > called to do everything & there are only 24 hours in a day. If you can
> > see
> > the importance of trying to educate Christians, & especially clergy,
> > about
> > matters of science & technology you will perhaps see why we don't all
> > devote
> > our attention to debating atheists & perhaps even apologize for your
> > implication that those of us involved in the former type of work are
> > cowards, dupes, &c. But I won't hold my breath.}
> >
> >
> >
> > [GLM I.e., if I don't believe your resurrected stillborn ape-like
> > mutant
> > story then I don't believe God had a miraculous hand in creating
> > mankind!]
> >
> > Oh, George, have some nuanced thinking for a change. It isn't my theory
> > to
> > which I refer. It is to the Bible, which you seem incapable of believing
> >
> > If you don't' believe the Bible where it says :
> >
> > "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
> > into
> > his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
> >
> > I don't care if you reject my theory, but if you decide that God didn't
> > actually perform the activities in the above statement, then you simply
> > have
> > to admit that you don't' beleve there is a single shred of historical
> > reality contained in Genesis 2:7. And if God didn't do that, then
> > what
> > miracle DID God do when mankind was formed?
> >
> > {GLM Unfortunately you don't think it's necessary to believe it either.
> > You think it's sufficient to present "something close to Genesis 2:7"
> > (as
> > below) but the simple fact is that God resurrecting a stillborn ape
> > isn't
> > forming man of the dust of the ground & breathing into his
> > nostrils. You
> > don't believe it really happened as the Bible says but manage to
> > convince
> > yourself that since something that might have happened & sort of sounds
> > like
> > it is the same thing & thus pacify your fundamentalist conscience.
> >
> > You also assume with no justification that the important point about
> > Gen.2:7
> > is that it's a "miracle." But of course the text doesn't say that or
> > use
> > any of the common biblical terms for what we call a miracle. Isn't it
> > possible that the text is simply saying that we are made to be living
> > beings
> > by YHWH from the common stuff of the earth? While it is not talking
> > about
> > evolution, that's quite consistent with a scientific understanding -
> > with
> > the crucial addition of "by YHWH," the God of Israel. That's what the
> > Bible
> > says & I believe it. As for believing it as literal history, no, I
> > don't
> > believe that & neither do you.}
> >
> > See, this is the problem. I at least present something that is close to
> > Genesis 2:7. You simply believe it didn't happen but then turn around
> > and
> > try to tell everyone what a wonderful book the Bible is and that it
> > teaches
> > true theology. How would we know it teaches true theology if everything
> > it
> > says is false? Do you believe Genesis 2:7?
> >
> > {GLM This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades.}
> >
> > [GLM I judge your claims by the standards you want them to satisfy &
> > find
> > them wanting. OTOH I want my arguments to be judged by appropriate
> > theological standards - which include agreement with well-confirmed
> > science
> > but are hardly limited to that.]
> >
> > George, you speak so abstractly that there is not much one can say to
> > this.
> > What standards? Who set up these theological standards? George Murphy?
> >
> > {GLM How about - well, the Nicene or Apostles' Creeds (which the ASA
> > statement of faith says are "brief, faithful statements of Christian
> > doctrine based upon scripture") for a start? Or to be really radical,
> > how
> > about speaking as if Jesus Christ made some difference to your
> > worldview?
> > Your discussions seldom if ever say anything about him. The fact that
> > you
> > seem unable to even think of such things as theological standards shows
> > your
> > lack of interest in & knowledge of serious theology. In your words,
> > you're
> > "out of your depth" when you try to talk about theology.
> >
> > & please don't insult my intelligence with any "if we can't believe in a
> > literal Adam/Jonah/floating ax we can't believe in the resurrection of
> > Christ" drivel. "Many Christians do" is a sufficient refutation of
> > that.}
> >
> > And
> > if you want to be in agreement with well-confirmed science, then why do
> > you
> > ignore genetics which clearly says that there has been no common human
> > ancestral pair for at least 5 million years? I can't change that. I wish
> > it
> > weren't true. I wish every genetic system and every gene showed the same
> > 100
> > kyr age because only in that manner can we have a REAL Adam and Eve who
> > are
> > parents of all humanity, but the fact is that they don't. We have two
> > choices, George, ignore it, or incorporate it into our theology. You
> > want to
> > ignore it. I don't.
> >
> > Do you even understand why all genes should show the very same age if we
> > are
> > all descended from a recent pair of ur-parents?
> >
> > {GLM I realize now that some of your statements about my supposed
> > scientific ignorance stem from your unwarranted notion that I think that
> > all
> > of present-day humanity can be traced to a single couple. If you had
> > read
> > what I've written on these matters you would realize that that's not the
> > case (E.g., on p.114 of my June '06 PSCF article: "But it does seem
> > unlikely that the present human race can be traced to a single
> > male-female
> > pair" - followed by reference to genetic data which may suggest that I'm
> > not
> > quite as ignorant of the subject as you imagine.)
> >
> > Time out for your expressions of shock, horror, and denunciations of my
> > refusal to believe the Bible. All I'll say not believing in an
> > "historical
> > Adam" is a considerably smaller departure from the Christian tradition
> > than
> > leaving Christ out of my theology.
> >
> > 2d, you seem to think that I have some theological commitment to a
> > recent
> > origin of humanity. I don't, as again you'd know if you'd read what
> > I've
> > written.}
> >
> > Well, George, one can say that about the talking snake, the floating ax
> > head, and indeed, the resurrection itself. What real evidence do we have
> >
> > today concerning the resurrection? We have some claims that people saw
> > the
> > risen Lord, but in fact, there is not one shred of physical evidence
> > remaining. So, if physical evidence becomes your standard, then by
> > definition, there can't be evidence for the resurrection--the body is
> > gone!
> >
> > {GLM This is so childish! Of course I only referred to the lack of
> > possibility of _physical_ evidence for your "Adam" because I didn't
> > think it
> > was necessary to point out that there is no _historical_ evidence of any
> > kind - documents &c - for such an event as there is for the resurrection
> > of
> > Jesus.}
> >
> > Is there any real evidence that David slew Goliath? Is there any real
> > evidence that Samuel was consecrated by his parents? All we have is the
> > word of the Bible, but we also have the word that "God formed man of the
> > dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
> > and
> > man became a living soul." But, there is no real evidence for that
> > either.
> > By your standard, you reduce the Bible to an evidentiaryless set of
> > assertions.
> >
> > When I demanded that our solutions fit the details of what it is we are
> > studying George wrote:
> >
> > [GLM Not enough for you but that's your problem. & again, the claim
> > that
> > your ape scenario agrees with Gen.2 in "details" is a vast
> > overstatement.]
> >
> > So, is this an argument for sloppy research and ignoring data we don't
> > like?
> > It seems that if one doesn't want to deal with the details of an area of
> > science, then one is saying it is ok to be sloppy and haphazard. Yes,
> > that
> > is my problem, George, I won't settle for slop. I did that when I was a
> > YEC
> > and I won't accept it anymore because it is self-deception.
> >
> > [GLM Again I am not holding a "double standard of judgement." I am
> > judging your cliams as you want them to be judging but I have not said
> > that
> > those criteria are the appropriate ones for theology. But OK, here's a
> > prediction that comes naturally from my approach: If we encounter
> > intelligent ETs we will find them to be sinful - or "fallen" if you
> > will.
> > (This is a slight adaptation of an argument of Bob Russell's.)]
> >
> > We probably have about as much chance at verifying this as we do at
> > verifying my ape. Do you have one that is more likely to be verified? I
> > would say that this illustrates that you don't apply the same standard
> > to
> > you as you do to me.
> >
> > {GLM Of course we don't know if there are ETs but there's a real
> > possibility whereas there's zero possibility of getting any evidence for
> >
> > your fantasy.}
> >
> > [GLM You want not just "verification" - which I have - but theological
> > prediction of novel scientific facts. I don't accept that as a criterion
> > for
> >
> > theology but see my comment above.]
> >
> > You can claim verification but until you lay it out specifically in
> > detail
> > (which means dealing with the details sometheing you above eschewed),
> > then I
> > deny that you have verification.
> >
> > {GLM & you don't _have_ agreement in details either - just a hope that
> >
> > maybe you will someday.}
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 17 18:08:08 2007