From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 18:11:38 EDT
To attempt Concordism one finds discord. Beyond the vaguest parallel there
is no concord between Genesis One and the history of life and earth. It is
better to see that Genesis One is a sequential poem/psalm extolling the
creator.
I will find concord by going back to sleep and marvelling at the creation
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: <pruest@mysunrise.ch>
Cc: <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: Concordist sequence
>
> 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 : Tue Jun 24 2003 - 02:04:43 EDT