From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 15:56:58 EDT
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:44:51 +0200 Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
writes:
>
> > >
> > Thanks for the information. I never realized that algae produced
> fruit
> > with seeds. I thought that the things like fruit on kelp were
> gas-filled
> > floats. I never realized that smaller algae, and perhaps
> cyanobacteria,
> > grew from seed.
>
> C'mon Dave, don't play the strawman game! David Campbell has made it
> perfectly clear that he isn't defending "concordism" but pointing
> out
> some of the strawmen erected against the "concordist sequence". On
> 18
> Jun 2003 15:39:58 -0400, he also wrote: "Oldest seed plants I think
> are
> now back to latest Devonian. First algae goes back to
> mid-Precambrian;
> photosynthetic bacteria much earlier... More discrepancies arise
> with
> the attempt to put every thing mentioned on each day before
> anything
> mentioned the next day." Even with this little information, your
> accusation about fruits and seeds is misplaced (and for the moment
> I'm
> not going to talk about possible sarcasm...).
>
Strawman? I simply draw attention to the express language of scripture
and draw the consequences therefrom. To get around this clear language
you rewrite scripture so that "grass, herb and fruit-bearing trees"
become cyanobacteria and algae. To put it bluntly, you make scripture say
whatever fits your modern view. Is it sarcastic to say that
'cyanobacteria' =df 'fruitree' is nonsense? To note that the earliest
known fossils of anything that bore fruit is Devonian and that there were
ancient fish swimming the Cambrian seas?
As a logician, I know that logic works equally as well on false
statements as true. If I isolate the statements that fit my desired
views, I can produce a consistent product out of the right combination of
true and false statements. However, if I then add a larger set of true
statements (ideally this would be all truths), I will quickly discover
that I have a /reductio ad absurdum/ of some, at least, of the false
statements originally adopted. If I continue to hold to the statements
shown to be false, I am committed to nonsense, strictly defined.
Your concordist interpretation is consistent only so long as no one
includes the express meanings of what scripture says came to be on the
third day, of the firmament (solid), of the order in which fossils occur,
and also the express statements of Genesis 2 (which do not match either
the order of Genesis 1 or the twist you want to give the forming of Adam
or the building of Eve). I'm hard on you and your outlook because I once
swallowed this kind of drivel myself, until careful attention to
scripture itself forced me to change my view. I was earlier a YEC, until
reading the scientific journals forced me to recognize its nonsensical
claims.
>
> Now it's nothing but sarcasm (although presumably not directed
> against
> David Campbell, who clearly doesn't support the absurd
> CMB/firmament
> idea). Even though I know that you reject any kind of "concordism",
> I
> feel it is inappropriate to denigrate reasoned arguments, just
> because
> they conflict with your opinion. As you recently told me that you
> read
> the 1999 PSCF paper by A.Held and myself, you should know perfectly
> well
> that there are other, reasoned interpretations of the so-called
> "firmament" and "water-above" which avoid all this nonsense. If you
> don't agree with them, you are free to do so. But don't play such
> unfair
> games! I'm sure there are people who read these comments of yours,
> but
> who haven't read our arguments.
>
Reasoned? Yes, I'll accept your rationality. Reasonable? No, for it
requires forcing language to say what you want it to say in neglect of
available evidence. If you want to follow Derrida and post-modernism,
this fits. If you are committed to truth and realism, you'll find a clear
/reductio/.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 15:59:40 EDT