It's been too long since we had a proper evolution debate. Let me start off by considering what evolutionists term 'macro-evolution', that is, change from one 'kind' to another. This is to be taken as distinct from 'microevolution', change within a species. For example, a bacterium evolving resistance to antibiotics is apparently microevolution, as is a wolf changing to a dog, while elephant to whale is (I think) macroevolution. I say 'apparently' and 'I think' because both concepts are rather nebulously defined. Therefore I'd like to start by figuring out what is the minimum change required for 'macroevolution' to have occurred. Would it be sufficient for a dog species to change into a cat? Chimpanzee to human? Hippo to whale?
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Wow, great thread for me to join Hatrack on.
As I recall from my admittedly long ago biology classes, a species is defined by animals able and willing to produce fertile offspring. Thus a horse and a donkey are different species because their progeny (mule) cannot breed. If this definition is correct, then the process of macro-evolution involves a change which prevents future breeding with an animal from prior to the change.
However, I think your final question is moot, or at least doesn't really apply. While different modern species have common ancestors, I don't believe it is accurate to say that one modern species evolved from another. To clarify, as I understand it, man did not evolve from chimpanzee, both evolved from some other ancestor, which may have been more chimp-like than man-like.
It should be noted that I'm not a scientist of any useful sort, so I'm likely to be totally off-base.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Raventhief, welcome. Both your objections are excellent, but you are missing some context in the debate. Creationists consider macro-evolution to be distinct from what biologists term speciation, which is what your donkey/horse/mule example refers to. It is not sufficient, as I understand their argument, for two individuals to be unable to interbreed; they must also look markedly different, or they are merely changes 'within a kind'. (This from Genesis, you understand, where Noah took a pair of all the animals 'according to their kind'. This is one solution to the problem of how he stuffed two animals of each of several thousand species into his hand-built wooden boat : He didn't, he used maybe ten or twenty 'kinds' instead, and all what we see micro-evolved later.) So I am wondering what is the minimum change required for us to recognise 'macro-evolution' to have occurred. In other words, a definition of 'kind'.
Your other point is of course correct, but I was merely using chimpanzee to human as an example of things that could conceivably be regarded as sufficient, not suggesting that it had actually occurred. Although really, the point is moot : Whatever the common ancestor looked like, we would certainly classify it as an ape.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Ah. So. Hmmm.
Seems like this is a question to ask creationists rather than evolutionists. Or at least those who believe in a synthesis of the two. Pure evolutionists would tend to retort that macro-evolution is merely a specific form of speciation. Unless I misunderstood you...
To try to answer your question, I'd say that switching from fins to legs would be macro, as would switching from paws to feet and/or hands. But those are probably obvious, and you'd need someone who believes in macro-evolution more than I to answer specifics.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Clearly, yes. Presumably, Jay, Farmgirl, or starLisa will be logging on at some point. Although perhaps they won't enter a thread started by me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Out of curiosity, what does this thread have that the last one did not? It hasn't been all that long.
Or has it been too long since you had a chance to snark nastily in someone's direction? Really, KoM. It's almost like you're trying to get yourself banned.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I don't think this specific question came up. Also, it's been at least a month, surely? In Internet Time, that comes to a good few years.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I realize there must be a history here, but KoM seems to be polite and logical at this point and a premeditated strike by rivka toward KoM without actual participation in the thread is kinda harsh.
I like evolution of all kinds, if only because both macro and micro-evolution are observable. I tentatively believe that the unobservable is inherently theoretical, and forever unproveable. Right?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know, when I see this thread title, I actually see, in my mind, the happy face with three eyes.
Weird.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In rivka's defense, I was perhaps a little unduly provocative in a thread yesterday.
I think you'll find few creationists who agree with you on the macro being observable, though - indeed, this is the crux of their argument, that we've never seen one 'kind' changing into another. As the saying goes, every time we find a transitional fossil, we create two more gaps. But I thought I'd start by defining the terms properly, since 'kind' seems generally to be defined as 'whatever difference is sufficient that some kind of argument can be made for us not having seen it.'
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Isn't Noahs arc the size of a modern Aircraft carrier? You could concievably fit every species that he could regionally get his hands on that weren't amphibious when the animals are little babies, you'll save spave and they wont eat each other.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, if you're defending Biblical literalists, Blayne, you'll have to discard the "regionally get his hands on" modifier. The kangaroo, for instance, either had to be on the ark or have some ancestor on the ark. (Of course that begs the question of how they got to Australia and/or became modern kangaroos, but one step at a time).
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
well, they hopped there... duh
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
How many square cubits of floorspace does an aircraft carrier have?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: How many square cubits of floorspace does an aircraft carrier have?
Tough call. A cubit is the tip of your middle finger to your elbow if I was taught correctly. Since humanity has gotten taller through the years, it won't be exact.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Is that really what a cubit is? I always wondered. I suppose it would change from person to person as well, right?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
USS Nimitz
97,000 tons full load
332.85 meters length
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: Is that really what a cubit is? I always wondered. I suppose it would change from person to person as well, right?
That what I was taught in my Reform Jewish classes growing up. Makes sense when I hear about other early measurements. I was once told the "foot" was once based on the size of the current monarch's feet. That last one could be urban legend, but sounds true.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, going on some dimensions I found, you're talking roughly 85,000 square cubits on the flight deck. VERY rough numbers though, and I can't vouch for how accurate the dims I found are.
Edit: Also ballparked a cubit at 18"
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Oh, and KoM the Macro/Micro argument is a non-argument from what I can tell. They claim that while small changes are provable and obvious, large changes are impossible. Yet what I understand evolution to mean is that these large changes are the results of many, many small changes--each of which happen over time.
What makes the descendants of one animal change species from its antecedants? Neither Nature nor God worries about categorizing creatures by species. Only Man, with his desire to place things in his understandable order, worries about putting things in categories.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Raven, even switching from paws to hands wouldn't be enough; monkeys/chimps/apes have hands, but since humans are obviously not evolved from apes, that would still be macro-evolution.
This thread reminds me of how shocked my sister was when she realized that if everyone was descended from Noah, and even earlier from Adam, somewhere along the line someone had to marry their brother. Yuck. Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Erm, JennaDean, that's a joke, right? Whether you believe it or not, I don't think it can be said to be obvious.
Anyway, I was offering a few examples that clearly are macro-evolution, there are undoubtedly many more instances of macro-evolution.
What's worse, I don't recall Adam and Eve ever having daughters, only sons... Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: What's worse, I don't recall Adam and Eve ever having daughters, only sons...
On that note, when Cain was sent to wander the Earth he was marked so he would be recognized for what he did, and no one would kill him for it. Who besides Adam, Eve, and later Seth would there be to meet.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:And the days of aAdam• after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: [Gen. 5:4]
I guess you guys just stopped reading too early. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4).
*Darn Karl's quick fingers*
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
OK, my bad.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
But before that:
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Beren One Hand: "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4).
*Darn Karl's quick fingers*
Yeah, but I have both hands. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Erm, JennaDean, that's a joke, right?
Obviously. (I obviously forgot my little smiley. )
I mean, that's the side of the debate I fall on, but I wrote the whole thing with my tongue in my cheek. In keeping with the thread-starter.
*goes off to find tongue-in-cheek graemlin*
Posted by Ray Bingham (Member # 9006) on :
Dang, and I was hoping this was a thread about the new Xmen movie...
--Ray
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Oh, and KoM the Macro/Micro argument is a non-argument from what I can tell. They claim that while small changes are provable and obvious, large changes are impossible. Yet what I understand evolution to mean is that these large changes are the results of many, many small changes--each of which happen over time.
You are obviously quite correct. But it's no use the two of us agreeing; I want to convince a creationist. In order to do that, we're first going to have to sgree on some kind of definition.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Karl.
I need to use that "one handed" excuse more often!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Hey! How come Beren gets to have an avatar, when none of the rest of us does?!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Dude, I have more than one avatar.
Check out these guys:
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*gasp!*
*frown*
:-p
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Micro evolution is pretty obviously a fact. Macro evolution on the other hand.
KoM, I'm a creationist. But more, I don't believe there was death before the Garden of Eden (a Mormon doctrine). The lack of death rules out the possibility of *any* evolution before Adam came into existance. As far as macro evolution after Adam, the "Fall," which marks the start of death, didn't happen that long ago and that doesn't allow as many years for macro evolution as is required.
So obviously these religious beliefs don't agree too well with things like the existance of dinosaurs. I'm satisfied that they can co-exist still. In fact, there are several things that make it very easy for me to believe them both and even more that researchers might discover.
First, there was a "change" at the time of Noah, as people before Noah lived several hunred, almost a thousand years. That just makes no sense at all to us. Can we rule it out as impossible? I doubt it. What sort of change could cause this?
Also, the word "created" in the Bible is interpreted differently for some. I believe it was the Catholics who decided it meant "created from nothing." Another interepretation means "organized from unorganized matter". Which could mean a planet that wasn't a part of our solar system or whatever.
Second, the idea that it is possible to exist without death raises the idea that there is a lot we can't even begin to understand. A. Lot.
My point is, I think I'm much more willing to accept that the explaination of what we have found on Earth could be even crazier than the theory of evolution because I'm willing to believe things like death isn't a universal constant, humans could live 1000 years even when there is death, and God can move planets at will.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Also, the word "created" in the Bible is interpreted differently for some. I believe it was the Catholics who decided it meant "created from nothing." Another interepretation means "organized from unorganized matter".
Both of these possible explanations predate Catholicism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Also, the word "created" in the Bible is interpreted differently for some. I believe it was the Catholics who decided it meant "created from nothing." Another interepretation means "organized from unorganized matter".
Both of these possible explanations predate Catholicism.
Yep.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
oh. ok. Well, one of them is right. Or both of them are wrong.
And I think the one where God creates everything from nothing is even more extrodinary as it implies God does all kinds of stuff we can't imagine. The one where he organizes sutff implies he works within some bounds or rules or he at least had some wacky reason to organize it rather than to just materialize it out of thin nothingness.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The literal Garden of Eden is considered "dogma" for LDS? That's new to me. Am I correct in believing that many or even most LDS are not literal fundamentalists?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:First, there was a "change" at the time of Noah, as people before Noah lived several hunred, almost a thousand years. That just makes no sense at all to us. Can we rule it out as impossible? I doubt it. What sort of change could cause this?
I read a book when I was younger, I can't remember by whom, but it was a fictional account of the flood, complete with Noah, his kids, cherubim, and seraphim. The explanation given in the book for our ancestors' longevity was their small stature. It was basically the inverse of the reasoning given for Bean dying young of Giagantism. Smaller cranium and smaller body == longer lifespan.
I don't know, I was little when I read it, but it seemed to make sense then.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
:looks around:
Um, yeah, LDS believe Adam was a real person and that events happened very similarly to the way explained in the Book of Genesis. Perhaps some things are figurative, like taking a rib from Adam's side to make Eve, and that the 7 days are very probably not days as we know them. AFAIK, there is no room in LDS doctrine that allows its members to say Adam or the Fall are figurative.
In fact, the Fall is one of the most absolute core doctrines of the LDS church. We believe the purpose of Christ's life was to overcome the Fall (which effects include God casting humans out of his presense and not letting us back in and death entering the world). He overcame the Fall by sacrificing his life (which was perfect (which means he didn't disobey God like Adam did), and as an act of mercy, the Son of God (we believe Jesus was God's son--literally) has the power to do this). Because of what he did, we can 1) be resurected back to our bodies and live forever w/ them (free) and 2) live again with God if we obey God's commandments (not free).
Maybe there are different types of Mormons around here, but that is what I have been taught over and over (in various forms) all my life, and what I was taught to teach (in various forms) on my mission and when I read the scriptures, that is what I see them teaching me (in various forms--the Book of Mormon teaches this much more clearly than the Bible, but I still believe those teachings are there in the Bible).
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I suspect that if you were to take the Bible, old and new testement, and parse each verse, you would find most Mormons believing more verses than most "literal fundamentialists". I also suspect that you would have most "literal fundamentialists" disagreeing with that statement.
How's that for broad generalizations.
Posted by Ray Bingham (Member # 9006) on :
Okay this is total space doctrine and feel free to call me nuts. It in no way represents a doctrine, but just for fun... here goes...
I haven't read all this, but LDS believe that God created all things spiritually before they were created temporally/physically. I have always believed that this distinction leaves LDS a LOT of wiggle room in the literalness of Adam and Eve's physical situation. At a certain point, Adam and Eve's spirits entered physical bodies and they and THEIR children began the process of mortality (death), which led to the dominance of man upon the earth. Remembering that Death is a seperation of the spirit from the presence of God, and that spiritual death occurs relatively early in that all men have sinned... One might theorize that the process of God's spirit children entering and leaving bodies is what was put into motion... the existence of some kind of Cro-magnon man, without the proper genetic tweak may not have been compatible with the type of Spirit appointed to pass through the mortal existence.
I've always wondered if the degeneracy of the mortal condition occurred due to mingling with this animal element... tehre's some wierd stuff in the apocrypha about the Nephilim.
--Ray
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
JT - was the book Many Waters by Madeleine L'Engle?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nell, I was about to ask that. It certainly sounds like it to me.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Could Adam and Eve be the core part of the whole evolution debate? If there are no Adam and Eve, then the whole Christian idea of orginal sin sort of gets blown away.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why does having evolution mean no Adam and Eve? At some point, pre-humans became humans. God calls the first two Adam and Eve (or Adam and Chava, actually ) and imbues them with souls.
Et voilà!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't feel strongly about humanity originating with a single pair, one way or the other. I personally think it extremely unlikely that the earth is as young as human_2.0 seems to believe, though. I also am disinclined to believe that humans ever had lifespans in the hundreds of years.
(None of this is intended as an effort to convince anybody of my beliefs, but rather to more fully understand where my beliefs and those of others diverge.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Micro evolution is pretty obviously a fact. Macro evolution on the other hand.
Would you please define what macro-evolution means before you go around making statements like this? It is very difficult to argue when you won't give an example of the process you say can't happen. I did request such a definition in my original post, for this very reason.
quote:KoM, I'm a creationist. But more, I don't believe there was death before the Garden of Eden (a Mormon doctrine). The lack of death rules out the possibility of *any* evolution before Adam came into existance.
Actually, that's a truth with some modifications. You don't need death, you just need descent with modification. (This is a total tangent, btw.) Mutations for breeding faster would be favoured, in the sense that there would be more of the fast-breeding creatures than the slow-breeding ones. Though I suppose you'll argue that there can't have been mutations in Eden either; it doesn't really matter, I'm jsut pointing out that you need more than a lack of death.
quote:My point is, I think I'm much more willing to accept that the explaination of what we have found on Earth could be even crazier than the theory of evolution because I'm willing to believe things like death isn't a universal constant, humans could live 1000 years even when there is death, and God can move planets at will.
Well, yes, if you accept supernatural explanations then some god could have poofed us all into existence five minutes ago, memories and all. It's just not a very useful way to go about things.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Human, you should see the discussions going on over at Nauvoo on this subject ... there's more divergence in LDS thought than I ever knew.
Unless you, also, are another Nauvoo member in disguise, and you're already posting in those threads.... *eyes Human suspiciously*
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, yes, if you accept supernatural explanations then some god could have poofed us all into existence five minutes ago, memories and all. It's just not a very useful way to go about things.
Descartesian philosophy as applied to memory as a race? Sounds like a headache waiting to happen...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Well, yes, if you accept supernatural explanations then some god could have poofed us all into existence five minutes ago, memories and all. It's just not a very useful way to go about things.
It should be noted that God is not needed in this. It's just as possible that we simply poofed into existence for no reason at all five minutes ago. There's no supernatural explanations needed.
After all, how do we know universes can't pop fully into existence all by themselves, memories and all?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, that's sort of the point. Or we could all be living in the Matrix. It could be true, sure, but that's an extraordinarily weak argument. If you start accepting that sort of thing, there's really no point in arguing at all, because there is no possible way of distinguishing a good argument from a bad one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And yet, you started this thread to have exactly this kind of argument, it seems.
Which is it? If you're simply going to equate the opposition's argument with the "popped into existence 5 minutes ago" argument, there's no point to the discussion - as you said. So why did you start it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, if you or human want to present any actual evidence that people lived longer, there was a literal deathless garden, and planets actually have been moved, please feel free. But the mere assertion that these things could have happened is extraordinarily weak.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's not my point. You know that the people who accept Creationism rely on evidence you don't accept. Nothing they say can get you to even consider that evidence; similarly, nothing you say can get them to reject that evidence.
If you want to limit the discussion to scientific principles then there's no point even embarking on it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, it's true the sort of creationist who has the honesty to say "I don't care about the facts, I'm going with the Bible" cannot be argued with. But I was more looking for a dialogue with those who believe there is actual scientific evidence for their position.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The distinction you speak of doesn't exist. The scientific evidence, at best, says that, based on the scientific evidence alone, evolution is far more likely than Creationism.
It doesn't matter how strong the scientific case is against Creationsim, as long as science still allows the possibility of Creationism. And, of course, it does.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Right, Dag, because people don't believe in Creationism because they've been convinced by scientific evidence that it's true. So scientific evidence to the contrary doesn't disprove it, for them. It just forces them to say, "Well, we don't know how everything fits together yet. I'm sure one day we'll see the whole big picture, but until then, I'm not going to let it bother me."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, Dag, but I still see some value in forcing people to acknowledge that the only way science allows for creationism is by the sort of could-have-happened argument human makes. Hence I am interested in showing how bad the 'science' people quote in support of creationism really is. EDIT : To make it clear, there do exist people who believe that there is a good scientific case to be made for creationism. I believe some of them post on this board. Those are the people I want to have a dialogue with.
But in any case, if you feel the discussion is completely pointless, why are you even posting? You usually leave my threads at some point with your feelings hurt.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
First, I'm not on Nauvoo. I like it here and have a hard enough time keeping up here... I don't need another forum!
Oh yeah, you did ask for a definition. I kinda understood that micro was what Darwin observed: finches. I mean, I'd have to be pretty ignorant to say the little birdies didn't evolve differences to handle their environment, because it is pretty well documented.
Macro is the leap of chromosones as I call it. "Less evolved" life forms have fewer chromos. It has been over 12 years since I've studied chromosones, so I'm not really up to discussing it much. But I remember at the time thinking that it evolution wasn't going to explain that very well. For all I know though, chromosone mutation may actually be scientificly observed and I'll feel stupid. But that is what I would call macro evolution.
About poofing into existance. One could decide to believe that but I think it is a cop out. I wasn't suggesting I was ignoring observed facts because of my beliefs. Rather, I'm just not letting it sway my beliefs about God.
Even if evolution were true, it doesn't mean there is no God. I don't really believe the Earth is as young as Adam. I just don't believe we have all the information. And I believe one day we will. Either we'll figure it on our own, or well die, go to heaven, and God will show us how he did it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To make it clear, there do exist people who believe that there is a good scientific case to be made for creationism. I believe some of them post on this board.
Try popping by Ornery. Right now, Ron Lambert -- a 7th-Day Adventist -- is arguing for a scientific basis for Creationism. Have fun.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't understand what you mean about 'leap of chromosomes'. Do you just mean a change in the actual number? We see that every day in people with Down's Syndrome! Which is not a beneficial mutation, sure, but then few are. There is no reason in principle a change in chromosome number couldn't be beneficial. Indeed, come to think of it, you might find this thread of some interest.
Incidentally, there is no such thing as a 'less evolved' creature. Everything alive today has evolved for exactly 2.7 billion years.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: "Well, we don't know how everything fits together yet. I'm sure one day we'll see the whole big picture, but until then, I'm not going to let it bother me."
Hahaha. I think I just said that. But rather than bother me, I'm actually curious how it did happen. I'm always keen to hear the newest scientific discoveries.
In my opinion, we are trying to put a puzzle together, and the argument is really about what the puzzle is suppose to look like. I have a puzzle box with a picture that includes God. Seems to me people arguing for evolution have a puzzle box that says there is no God.
Then of course there are people who could care less about putting the puzzle together and are intent on just manipulating everyone else by supporting whoever makes it easier for them to get what they want. They are the real problem makers in my opinion.
And I would say the problem makers are on BOTH sides. Pat Roberston anyone???? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't consider Mormons Christian, and I'm glad because I wouldn't want to be on his side of the room if I had to choose.
Also, about Mormons. Mormon doctrine is a lot like scientific evidence. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I've heard some of the craziest stuff. But I think a lot of Mormons are trying to build skyscrapers on too little of a foundation. I don't think we have enough information to form a decent idea of what happened.
So when people start coming up with crazy ideas that God is a space traveler who landed on Earth and put Adam here, well.... That is a good story based on how we perceive the universe, but it probably has nothing to do with reality and I don't think we can know what happened until we have more evidence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Seems to me people arguing for evolution have a puzzle box that says there is no God."
While that may be true of SOME people arguing for evolution, it's certainly not true of all of them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Seems to me people arguing for evolution have a puzzle box that says there is no God."
While that may be true of SOME people arguing for evolution, it's certainly not true of all of them.
It's certainly not true for me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, Dag, but I still see some value in forcing people...
Exactly - you have no desire to learn from others, or truly understand their view, merely to force them to make an admission you think helps your desired outcome.
Try thinking of this as a discussion board.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:JT - was the book Many Waters by Madeleine L'Engle?
Thank you so much! I couldn't remember what the name of it was, although I had the vaguest tickling in the back of my brain that it was a L'Engle book. I'm going to buy that after work today.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why does having evolution mean no Adam and Eve? At some point, pre-humans became humans. God calls the first two Adam and Eve (or Adam and Chava, actually ) and imbues them with souls.
Et voilà!
The problem is for the bible literalists. Bible says Eve is made from Adam's rib, Adam is I believe made from dirt.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Yes, that's sort of the point. Or we could all be living in the Matrix. It could be true, sure, but that's an extraordinarily weak argument. If you start accepting that sort of thing, there's really no point in arguing at all, because there is no possible way of distinguishing a good argument from a bad one.
Why is this a weak argument? Just because you have faith that the conclusion isn't true?
I think God exists. Does that make atheist arguments weak? I mean, sure, God might not exist, but if we start doubting God then there's really no point in arguing at all, because there's no way of distinguishing a good argument from a bad one, right?
quote:The distinction you speak of doesn't exist. The scientific evidence, at best, says that, based on the scientific evidence alone, evolution is far more likely than Creationism.
On multiple threads about intelligent design, folks insisted that science cannot study whether or not a Creator exists, because such a thing is not testable - and insisted that this is such a fundamentally important rule of science that it meant we could never discuss ID as a valid theory in science class. Why, then, are you now suggesting that science can say Creationism is "unlikely"? Science can either test God scientifically, or it cannot. If it cannot, then it can't comment on the probability of God.
This is the problem with attempting to demand a very strict line separating science from nonscience. It is convenient for people to use that line one way in order to keep certain ideas out of science, but people casually ignore the line all the time when it goes the other way - when attempting to attribute conclusions to science that science cannot really make according to the scientific method.
If science can't study God then it can't say anything at all about the likelihood of Creationism. The only thing it could say is that God is not necessary for its model of the universe to work. Drawing further conclusions beyond that is not the realm of science. Yet, I suspect a large majority of people draw such nonscientific conclusions from science all the time, and think science has justified them with scientific evidence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why, then, are you now suggesting that science can say Creationism is "unlikely"?
First, I'm not any of the people you're speaking of, so the "why now" part of your question is inapplicable.
Second, I did not say that science can say Creationism is unlikely. I said that science, at best (meaning at most), can say that, when one examines scientific evidence only, evolution is more likely than creationism.
That's a very different statement than the way you summarized it.
quote:people casually ignore the line all the time when it goes the other way - when attempting to attribute conclusions to science that science cannot really make according to the scientific method.
Good thing I didn't do that. The conclusion I "attributed" (noting that I really didn't attribute it) to science was a scientific conclusion considering only scientific evidence. You're the one who then leaped from there to an assumption that I was making a statement about actual truth.
quote:This is the problem with attempting to demand a very strict line separating science from nonscience. It is convenient for people to use that line one way in order to keep certain ideas out of science, but people casually ignore the line all the time when it goes the other way - when attempting to attribute conclusions to science that science cannot really make according to the scientific method.
This is something I've pointed out time and time again. Nothing I've said in this thread even implies that I want to apply science to non-scientific matters.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Second, I did not say that science can say Creationism is unlikely. I said that science, at best (meaning at most), can say that, when one examines scientific evidence only, evolution is more likely than creationism.
But that is saying that science can, even if just "at most", comment on the probability of creationism. And it can't. At most science can say Creationism is not necessary for its model of how things work.
I'm not suggesting you are intending to apply science to things science doesn't apply to. I'm just saying that it's fairly commonplace in everyday thinking for people to do so anyway - even you, who don't intend to and are probably careful not to. For that matter, I do it too. This is how scientific biases can creep into things that are not strictly scientific, in our society.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But that is saying that science can, even if just "at most", comment on the probability of creationism. And it can't. At most science can say Creationism is not necessary for its model of how things work.
Not true when you only look at the scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence can be used to assign probabilities to possible ages of the earth. Since Creationism posits an age that is inconsistent with most scientific evidence, then scientific evidence, examined alone, makes Creationism less likely than evolution.
My whole point to KoM, of course, is that one can't discuss Creationism's likelihood without considering non-scientific evidence.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Actually, part of the problem is the confusion of what is meant by Creationism, and ID. Creationism does attempt to scientifically support it's claims (very poorly, but that's another thread). To the degree that Creationism attempts to portray itself as science, science can (and should) make assertions about its probability of being scientifically valid.
I also try not to apply science to metaphysics, but that doesn't mean science can't be applied to physical phenomena where metaphysics makes or implies scientifically observable claims. For instance, science can't speak to the existence or non-existence of God. However, science can speak to the likelihood of there having been a global flood in the past 6000 years. It can speak to the likelihood that all mankind is decended from a common ancestor that appeared 6000 years ago or so. Science can't "disprove" the bible, but it can speak to the likelihood of the literal nature of many of the events it describes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't think Creationism posits any given age for the earth. Certain Christian varieties of Creationism do, based on a given particular interpretation of the Bible, but Creationism in general could date the universe at any age.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:My whole point to KoM, of course, is that one can't discuss Creationism's likelihood without considering non-scientific evidence.
Actually one can. Creationism insofar as it has any bearing on science is the belief that the creation account in Genesis literally occurred and that scientific evidence exists to support that claim. Since this is a scientific claim, non-scientific evidence does not have to be considered. Where KoM goes wrong is that he assumes anyone here actually believes in this definition of creationism.
Now, if you want to define creationism as simply the belief in a divine creator, then you're right that it can't be discussed without including non-scientific evidence because there is no scientific evidence to indicate a divine creator.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think Creationism posits any given age for the earth. Certain Christian varieties of Creationism do, based on a given particular interpretation of the Bible, but Creationism in general could date the universe at any age.
Good, but human and KoM were discussing young-earth Creationism when I made my comments, and it is to that which I was referring.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
Hi King of Men,
I'm not sure if I'm the sort of person you wish to have dialogue with, but I'm a Young Earth Creationist, if you'll remember. The reason I say I'm not sure is your statement above that you're attempting to have dialogue with those who believe that the scientific evidence supports their creationism. Well as I think I've told you before, I believe in creationism presuppositionally because of my trust in the Bible, but at the same time I do also believe that the scientific evidence is consistent with my view of the Bible (not necessarily that it unconditionally supports it).
With regard to your initial post, I do not make any distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I think both kinds "work" quite well and can be observed in nature and reproduced. In fact I may even take a faster view of their potential than you do, since I believe that all life on earth has diversified to this point from 6,000 years ago from some finite number of created kinds, through the process of evolution. So for instance, I would accept the idea that a lion and a housecat probably have common ancestors that were aboard Noah's ark, and after disembarking, their descendents evolved down different paths.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think Creationism posits any given age for the earth. Certain Christian varieties of Creationism do, based on a given particular interpretation of the Bible, but Creationism in general could date the universe at any age.
Again, this points to the problem of definitions which are absolutely critical to any debate on the subject. "Creationism" with a capital "C" generally does posit an age and pretty much tries (and so far fails) to validate Genesis with scientific evidence. On the other hand, "creationism" with a little "c" can mean whatever the person who chooses the label chooses it to mean. You can't argue against "creationism" at all because it doesn't mean anything on one side of the arguement and can mean absolutely anything on the other.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Also, I think it is certainly possible to apply science to metaphysics, so long as you realize that once you have left the scientific method it is no longer science that you are doing.
For instance, one could say science has shown that evolution occurs. That would be scientific, because it is supposedly based entirely on the scientific method. Then one could say this provides a counterexample to the Argument by Design, and thus refutes Creationism. That would not be science. Instead, it would be a metaphysical argument that contains one premise that is scientific, but other premises that are not scientific.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote:My whole point to KoM, of course, is that one can't discuss Creationism's likelihood without considering non-scientific evidence.
Actually one can. Creationism insofar as it has any bearing on science is the belief that the creation account in Genesis literally occurred and that scientific evidence exists to support that claim. Since this is a scientific claim, non-scientific evidence does not have to be considered. Where KoM goes wrong is that he assumes anyone here actually believes in this definition of creationism.
I'm talking about Creationism insofar as whether it is what happened or not, not merely whether it is scientifically proveable.
"God created the Earth 6,000 years ago in the fashion related in Genesis" is not a scientific claim. Individual statements about whether this or that provides scientific evidence for this claim are scientific claims.
Science can't disprove young-earth creationism as related in Genesis strictly because God's power as related in Genesis is not limited by anything we can scientifically determine.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:So for instance, I would accept the idea that a lion and a housecat probably have common ancestors that were aboard Noah's ark, and after disembarking, their descendents evolved down different paths.
Would you still accept that idea in light of the idea that evolution as science defines it requires millions of years to create such diversity? Or do you believe that maybe Noah and the flood actually happened millions of years ago? Or that evolution actually works several orders of magnitude faster than there is currently any hint of a dream of evidence for it to be able to?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Good, but human and KoM were discussing young-earth Creationism when I made my comments, and it is to that which I was referring.
Ah, sorry. I got a bit overenthusiastic there, perhaps...
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Science can't disprove young-earth creationism as related in Genesis strictly because God's power as related in Genesis is not limited by anything we can scientifically determine.
I agree that science can't disprove anything that remains strictly a metaphysical claim. However, if your metaphysics lead you to make claims about the observable universe, science can certainly evaluate those claims in light of all other observations and (if not actually disprove them) can comment on the likelihood of their being accurate.
What I've been trying to get at is that the whole discussion is worthless without defining what claims are being discussed. KoM's initial post (in my estimation) was an attempt to get a scientifically arguable claim out of anyone who believes "macro-evolution" (or probably any aspect of evolution) did not occur. I think the discussion is doomed from the start because he has basically asked people to list something that would disprove their metaphysically influenced beliefs about the world if it could be shown to have happened. That is something most people are very reluctant to do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, if your metaphysics lead you to make claims about the observable universe, science can certainly evaluate those claims in light of all other observations and (if not actually disprove them) can comment on the likelihood of their being accurate.
Which is what I've said - with the additional caveat that other, non-scientific, evidence could change that likelihood for anyone who accepts that evidence.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
KarlEd, isn't it clear from my post that I think it works much faster than most think? After all I said that all species have gotten to this point after a maximum of 6000 years of evolution.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
If you check the article in January's Smithsonian Magazine:
http://www.skeptictank.org/kurtwise.htm Contains the interesting misspelling: "The key issue in origins is the chasm between naturalists and those who say Cod created everything"
You'll find that Kurt Wise, a Young-Earth Creationist AND a Harvard PhD Paleontologist believes that the Grand Canyon was formed in three weeks by the Snake River (maybe he should have said, "The Snake river...on ACID")
This is an interesting site, and it goes a long way to explain why some people (not to say anyone here, mind you) fight so hard for the Creationist POV:
quote:The details of the creation account do matter and are essential. If Adam wasn’t a real historical figure, then who is our ancestor? How do we know we are sinners? If Adam’s Fall was not a real event in history, then what is sin? If Adam and Eve weren’t created just as Genesis records, then the doctrine of marriage is meaningless. If the days of creation aren’t ordinary days, then there’s no basis for the seven-day week, and God’s Word doesn’t have to mean what the language clearly states. If the earth is millions of years old, and death, disease and bloodshed existed before sin, then the gospel is undermined
I'm not posting that to make fun of it. These people take their Bible very seriously, and see their whole world-view falling apart if science is found to be correct about any of these issues.
-Steve
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avin: KarlEd, isn't it clear from my post that I think it works much faster than most think? After all I said that all species have gotten to this point after a maximum of 6000 years of evolution.
You are then left with the interesting problem of explaining why we aren't still seeing this process going on. As I pointed out earlier, the number of species in the world is such that you would need, basically, a new one in every generation. (Incidentally, the limit wouldn't be 6k years, but whatever time you want to say has passed since the Flood.) So why aren't we seeing a new species of sheep every year?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The details of the creation account do matter and are essential. If Adam wasn’t a real historical figure, then who is our ancestor? How do we know we are sinners? If Adam’s Fall was not a real event in history, then what is sin? If Adam and Eve weren’t created just as Genesis records, then the doctrine of marriage is meaningless. If the days of creation aren’t ordinary days, then there’s no basis for the seven-day week, and God’s Word doesn’t have to mean what the language clearly states. If the earth is millions of years old, and death, disease and bloodshed existed before sin, then the gospel is undermined --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not posting that to make fun of it. These people take their Bible very seriously, and see their whole world-view falling apart if science is found to be correct about any of these issues.
It is a very fragile faith that depends on these kinds of things and that can't distinguish between fact and truth.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Avin,
Where do you fall on the scale? Is this sort of adherence to the Bible that critical to your sense of place?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm really not trying to "set you up." You are free, however, to take the fifth.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
What do you mean by "fall on the scale" ?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avin: KarlEd, isn't it clear from my post that I think it works much faster than most think? After all I said that all species have gotten to this point after a maximum of 6000 years of evolution.
Under the idea of a young earth in conjunction with evolution, how are dinosaurs explained? Please tell me something other then Satan put the bones there.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Do you believe, as the author on "AnswersInGenesis" does, that science could discredit the Bible, thereby shattering your faith, or do you believe that Science and Religious faith can somehow coexist, or somewhere else along that line (or extrapolated in one direction or the other)?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avin: KarlEd, isn't it clear from my post that I think it works much faster than most think? After all I said that all species have gotten to this point after a maximum of 6000 years of evolution.
I find this fascinating, especially considering that one of the biggest objections to evolution in its infancy was that there simply hadn't passed enough time for such diversity to come about given the way evolution is thought to work.
I'm not trying to "set you up" either. I would like to know to what degree you've thought about how this belief fits with other of your beliefs or with the observable universe, though. Can you answer KoM's question about why evolution doesn't appear to be working at such hyper-speed today?
Do you have any theories as to how species got to Australia, or the Americas after Noah landed (presumably somewhere in Europe or Asia)?
What do you believe about Dinosaurs? Were they killed in the flood? Why?
You are, of course, free to not respond.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
King of Men, on what basis can you postulate that a species every year is required? As far as I know, the idea that speciation has occured at such-and-such a rate throughout history is an idea that cannot be determined scientifically. There is no falsifiable scientific test that will disprove what I said; that's why it's not science. You mistake me for the sort of creationist who thinks their ideas are. I would say that my ideas fall more into the realm of history, not science. If we were to find a manuscript that was written say, 3000 years ago, that attempts to comprehensively document the reproductive isolation of different animal and plant groups, then perhaps we would be able to evaluate our ideas better to see what a viable rate of speciation is. But as far as we know, no one thought to do something like that 3000 years ago. So all we've got is circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted in different ways for what happened in the last few thousand years, and the scientific evidence of the last hundred or so years.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
Ok, both of you have said you're not trying to "set me up" (your quotes)! I find that funny because I never thought you were, but thanks for showing that you are genuinely trying to understand my perspective.
ssywak, in that article quoted I don't see what gives you the impression that the author thinks that science could discredit the Bible. The argument being made in the article is that a long-age view discredits the Bible, but you yourself make the equivocation that a long-age view is science. I grant you that this is the scientific majority opinion, but I don't think it is the opinion of the article's author, so it is unfair to make it seem as though he thinks that. Perhaps a more accurate statement of the author's intent is that your current perception of the findings of science discredit the Bible? If so, I would agree with him; if the Bible's historical narratives are inaccurate, then I see no reason to view the Bible's spiritual teachings as an ultimate authority - it would be then reduced to the collected wisdom of one tribe of ancient people (which seems to be a common view among both liberal theologians and non-Christians).
As to the relation between science and the Bible, I would share the view of Isaac Newton, who ardently defended a creation date of around 4000 BC before opponents of his who set that date much further back due to extra-Biblical writings. Of course those opposing ideas were not millions of years earlier, merely several thousand years earlier, but Newton used the same epistemological framework to defend the Bible: that the Bible is an accurate source of historical knowledge, and that experimental science properly interpreted would support this. Today we have odd dichotomies of knowledge where "science" actually overlaps with history considerably. History is a discipline that is primarily conducted using different authorities of written accounts, sometimes using physical evidence to corroborate the accounts in question. Now we have various scientific disciplines whose entire purpose serves to corroborate these accounts, to the extent that the science has been completely segregated from the accounts themselves. One example is geology, which often seeks to interpret evidence without regard for any framework. The argument in favor of this is that without tying yourself presuppositionally to an interpretation, you are allowed more freedom in discovering truth, but from a logical perspective, that really means you can prove less.
Since a couple of you have asked about dinosaurs, my response is that I see no reason why dinosaurs could not have lived until relatively recently, and have contributed to some of the supposedly mythological accounts of creatures such as dragons we have inherited from our ancestors.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
For the record, I said I wasn't trying to "set you up" only because ssywak, in his disclaimer, seems to be implying that some of us are doing so.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
By the way, thanks ssywak for the information about Dr. Kurt Wise - your blurb about him being a Harvard Ph.D. enticed me to look up a brief bio on him, which uncovered that he did his Ph.D. under the prominent (late) evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, all the while retaining his Young Earth Creationist views. From a few of the articles I've read from him, I really like his writing, especially since he definitely seems to know evolution and has the integrity to point out to other Christians or creationists when evolutionists have a point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: if the Bible's historical narratives are inaccurate, then I see no reason to view the Bible's spiritual teachings as an ultimate authority
See, I would. Factually inaccurate is different from untrue.
quote: - it would be then reduced to the collected wisdom of one tribe of ancient people (which seems to be a common view among both liberal theologians and non-Christians).
Can I assume you acknowledge that there are liberal, Christian theologians?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
By the way, just because I have trouble letting things lie, I am one Mormon whose personal opinion about death before the Fall differs from Human 2.0's.
I suspect that the natural process of "death" has been a part of life from the beginning. It's how creatures eat, renew themselves, and make room for future generations.
But it only started to take on the meaning it has for humans (ie, a mortal's time of earthly probation being cut short, with the chance of a harsh moral judgment in the hereafter, and the need for an atoning sacrifice) in the moment when Adam and Eve became morally-conscious children of God.
The specific story of the Garden of Eden could very easily be a highly symbolic retelling of a real event. We already largely consider "the serpent" to be a metaphor for Lucifer. There is no reason that other parts of the story might be metaphorical as well, so long as the true events still support the Mormon doctrine surrounding the atonement of Christ.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Avin:
I don't understand why you believe that if the initial genesis story is untrue that is makes the entire bible untrue. The first five books were given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Who is to say that G-d did not include those stories for purposes of His own.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:You are then left with the interesting problem of explaining why we aren't still seeing this process going on. As I pointed out earlier, the number of species in the world is such that you would need, basically, a new one in every generation. (Incidentally, the limit wouldn't be 6k years, but whatever time you want to say has passed since the Flood.) So why aren't we seeing a new species of sheep every year?
I was under the impression that the fossil record indicated that there were time periods where there was a rapid introduction of species followed by a much slower rate of species being introduced and on and on. If that is the case, then perhaps that indicates that some other factor, like large scale environmental conditions, plays a large role in the rate of evolution. And if that is also true, then I see no reason why evolution could not have occurred at a much different rate than what we observe now.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
quote:I don't understand why you believe that if the initial genesis story is untrue that is makes the entire bible untrue. The first five books were given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Who is to say that G-d did not include those stories for purposes of His own.
I have a problem worshipping a God who deludes his chosen nation for "purposes of His own". I might not throw away Christianity altogether, but as I said, I would find a hard time justifying why what is then no more than the collective wisdom of the Jews is more significant than the collective wisdom of any other ancient group with religious convictions.
Some people today claim that my position is tantamount to claiming that God deludes people through the geologic/astronomic evidence. That is not so. That evidence would not be interpreted the way it is if as in my post above, we did not seperate the circumstancial evidence of nature from the primary evidence of the written account of the creator.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well one thing is for certain. You just can't argue with someone who takes the bible 100% litteraly. The book itself is all the evidence they need.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why does having evolution mean no Adam and Eve? At some point, pre-humans became humans. God calls the first two Adam and Eve (or Adam and Chava, actually ) and imbues them with souls.
Et voilà!
The problem is for the bible literalists. Bible says Eve is made from Adam's rib, Adam is I believe made from dirt.
Dust, actually.
My point was that the line between those who believe in divine creation and those who believe in evolution is not nearly as clear-cut as some would like to believe.
I also agree with (some of) what Puppy said. Well, not the specifically Christian and/or Mormon parts, naturally. But that death could have started as a purely natural phenomenon and become spiritually significant only with Adam and Chava, certainly. (The Maharal suggested something very similar over 400 years ago.)
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I like agreeing with Rivka. Makes me feel smart Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avin: [QUOTE]Some people today claim that my position is tantamount to claiming that God deludes people through the geologic/astronomic evidence. That is not so. That evidence would not be interpreted the way it is if as in my post above, we did not seperate the circumstancial evidence of nature from the primary evidence of the written account of the creator.
You agree, then, that if it were not for the Bible, there would be no way a reasonable scientist would look at the evidence and see a 6000-year-old Earth?
And given that this is so, why should we take the Bible over, say, the Rig-Vedas, which have completely different claims about the age of the Earth?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:And given that this is so, why should we take the Bible over, say, the Rig-Vedas, which have completely different claims about the age of the Earth?
"We" clearly shouldn't base our beliefs about the age of the earth on any scripture, if "we" includes King of Men, who categorically rejects works of scripture as legitimate sources of learning.
Avin, however, might choose the Bible over the Rig Vedas because subjective personal experience has led him to accept the Bible as being from God, and therefore as being a worthwhile source of learning.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hang on, though. I am provisionally going to assume that Avin's experience is not of the form "God writes in letters of fire that the bible is His personal creation and every word is to be taken literally". So we get that the Bible, according to Avin's personal experience, is a worthwhile source of morality; I do not myself agree, but that is not relevant. Where in this do we learn that the Bible is a good source for history? From the evidence which he assembles to show that it is historically accurate; but he agrees that he would not have done such a thing if not for the bible.
So we have a chain of reasoning that goes
The Bible is a good source of morality -> The Bible is historically accurate -> This evidence, in light of the latter fact, shows that the Bible is historically accurate.
Now in the first place, I think the last two are circular; but in any case, the first step is just a plain old non sequitur.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Or is it more like:
1) The Bible is historically and scientifically accurate.
2) All scientific and historical accounts that differ from the Bible are suspect, and must be rejected because of (1).
3) All remaining scientific and historic accounts therefore agree with the Bible.
4) Because all of the acceptable scientific and historic accounts agree with the Bible, the Bible is therefore proven to be historically and scientifically accurate.
But in Avin's defense, use "science" instead of "the Bible." I would say "Use 'history'", but history is not, on its own, predictive. It's descriptive only, and therefore its "accuracy" is measured differently, anyhow.
BTW, I believe that science will stand the test far better than the Bible, but I promised not to dog-pile Avin.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
How can the Bible be scientifically accurate until science can explain the existance of God? By science I mean the method, not the people.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I believe that science will stand the test far better than the Bible
That's an interesting comment considering how many times science has been and continues to be wrong.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
As opposed to the Bible, which has been wrong in certain claims for about ~2000 years and continues to be wrong in the exact same ways ? At least science has a well established system for correcting itself, even if individual scientists don't execute it perfectly.
But the thing is, with science, you only know something was wrong because some better theory came along. I'm sorry that last sentence was in rhyme. Anyway, Camus, do you really think that, as you read this on your computer - which I'm sure the Vatican wasn't responsible for - science hasn't already stood the test of time at least as well as the bible? In fact, probably more so, since you might say early man was performing a crude sort of science when he started crafting tools and making fire.
It just continues to amaze me that people keep comparing science to religion. It's so tiring to here arguments that boil down to one group yelling "God is better" and the other "Science is better." Not that that happens much on Hatrack, thankfully. They're almost mutually exclusive anyway. I'm an agnostic and I wouldn't study physics (or any science) to deal with a moral issue. Why would a smart, educated, religous person insist on consulting the Bible with a scientific question?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:At least science has a well established system for correcting itself...with science, you only know something was wrong because some better theory came along
Science is only as good, or as correct, as our current knowledge and information gathering abilities allow it to be. In other words, science and our knowledge of ourselves and the universe is constantly changing, constantly being revised to fit the information that we have. This is not unlike the Bible. The Bible, or more specifically, the interpretation of it, is constantly being revised to fit the information that we have. (Some people, however, hold to certain Biblical thoughts more than others despite what current knowledge may suggest. I will address this later.)
However, Science and Religion are completely different topics and fields of study. So if any comparison is made, it should be made on the grounds of the intended use of each field of study. The purpose of science is to tell us how things work. The Bible is more of a moral guide. In the last 4,000 years, science has been wrong on a great number of things. In contrast, the Bible has some moral guidelines that we can all agree upon which have been true for thousands of years, which will probably also hold true for humans thousands of years from now. (The question of whether people should get their sense of morality from a book is a question for a different thread) Granted, not all of the Bible's moral guidelines are agreed upon by everyone as being the best, but it has a fairly decent record. So, in answer to your question, I do not think that science has stood the test of time any better than the Bible has. I truly believe that thousands of years from now, when the current scientific theories have changed, certain moral guidelines, such as treating others as we would want to be treated, will still be beneficial.
So, "Why would a smart, educated, religious person insist on consulting the Bible with a scientific question?" Certain, if not many, scientific findings are of little consequence to the everyday lives of most people. The age of the earth is not going to change the way I live my life any more so than whether Inflation did indeed cause the universe to expand during its earliest stage of life. The fact that science is only correct in the sense that it is the best knowledge that we can have given the abilities and information we have available to us is not enough of an assurance to cause some people to abandon certain beliefs. The scientific method is a great way learning, but it's only as good as the tools that it has to work with.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: I like agreeing with Rivka. Makes me feel smart
Piffle. You are intelligent and well-spoken in your own right, Geoff. (Well, at least you were back in the days that you got a decent amount of sleep at night. )
And I think that even on those occasions that you are completely wrong. Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: As opposed to the Bible, which has been wrong in certain claims for about ~2000 years and continues to be wrong in the exact same ways ?
What, exactly, has the Bible claimed that it continues to be wrong about?
quote:Camus, do you really think that, as you read this on your computer - which I'm sure the Vatican wasn't responsible for - science hasn't already stood the test of time at least as well as the bible?
Actually, science was a religious endeavor and always has been until the 2 started disagreeing (like Earth being round, sun at center of universe, origin of man).
quote:In fact, probably more so, since you might say early man was performing a crude sort of science when he started crafting tools and making fire.
And how are you so sure what early man was doing? The theory of evolution is a theory for a very good reason. It isn't proved, yet you talk as if it were true with almost religious conviction.
What if we are all wrong? What if premortal man was kidnapped by aliens from another planet and dropped off here by mistake? Nobody can disprove this theory. Neither can anyone disprove the Adam theory.
The whole point of religion is that there is a method for learning truth that is not the scientific method. There are some things that can't be studied by the scientific method, and it is our emotions. You can study them to a point. But eventually the act of asking how people feel will change what the people feel. That is, the study alters the experiment. You can't maintain an untainted control group.
I, however, can study how I feel and come to my own conclusion what my feelings mean. And using scientific method techniques, I can decide that my feelings are evidence that there is a God, who chooses not to be studied, but is leaving his existance questionable enough that if I wanted, I could ignore him. Which in turns stands as a witness what my true feelings are towards him.
Kinda like a king who dresses like a beggar and wanders in the streets to see how his advisors act while not in his presense. Do the advisors treat the beggar kindly, or spit and revile them?
Of course God doesn't want us to be able to prove he exists. That would defeat the purpose of why we are here! But he isn't going to leave us completely without his help, so he talked to some people who did believe him, and they wrote books like the Bible.
Meaning, I think I *do* have evidence that suggests the Bible gives a correct account of the begining of man, because I've decided that in studying how I feel, it suggests God is real.
So in my opion, what it all comes down to is who knows what emotions mean. I would almost say that artists understand more about human emotions than scientists. Scientists are good at studying things. Artsits are good at putting music, pictures, or stories to things that we can't see, but feel are true.
I hope one day we can study religious stuff scientifically. Take resurrection. That has got to be one of the wackiest religious beliefs there is. Wouldn't it be cool to find out how it will work?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: Originally posted by human_2.0: What, exactly, has the Bible claimed that it continues to be wrong about?
quote: Actually, science was a religious endeavor and always has been until the 2 started disagreeing (like Earth being round, sun at center of universe, origin of man).
Science, in it's most basic form, is a method of learning by observation, experimentation, and evaluation. The scientific method that we have today has merely been refined from these three actions. By this definition, even trial and error would count as science, and rightly so.
Therefore, Human, no, I'm not sure at all about what early man was doing, but I have to imagine that most of early technological learning came from accident and trial and error. Certainly this was taking place long before any religions that we know of today. Whether or not, and to what extent, it was affected by any early religious beliefs are questions that I would be very interested to learn the answers to.
Also, Human, I didn't actually mention evolution in my post, but since you brought it up...I'm very tired of the "it's only a theory, it's not proven" argument. Sometimes I think people are being purposefully dense on this one; a theory doesn't mean it's just some crazy dream that Darwin had one night. It means an organization of facts that explain some phenomenon, in this case the massive species diffrentiation on Earth. And no, it hasn't been proved in the sense that it is insurmountable, but there is a mountain of facts supporting it as a theory. We also, for example, have a Theory of Flight, but I'm sure you don't worry about that being unproven when you get on an airplane.
I also disagree with the statement that it is scientifically impossible to study emotions. I will readily admit that we're not very good at it yet, but it is a relatively new science, and one of the most potentially complex. Furthermore, I might study my feelings, and using the scientific method, decide that there is no god, or that the Earth is a sentient being that views all organisms on the planet as an infestation and natural disasters are it's immune system, or any number of increasingly ridiculous things. My point here is not to mock your faith, but to point out the flaw in your logic.
Camus, I have to agree with you that certain moral guidelines have stood up to time very well. The Golden Rule would be my choice of example as well.
In regards to your last paragraph, let me rephrase my question and see if that changes how you view it. Why would a smart, educated, religious person snub the best available information we have today in favor of what was common knowledge millennia ago? I guess what I'm saying is that, when it comes down to it, I'd take and honest "this is the best we have" over a "This is absolutely the way things are" any day. I'm always made a little nervous by anyone who's absolutely sure of almost anything.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Golden Rule, incidentally, has nothing to do with the Bible. Confucius formulated it while the Jews were still extolling the virtues of slaughtering anyone who got in their way.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Avin,
If you're still involved in the thread, could you take a stab at explaining the existence and abundance of coal within a 6,000 year time span and the time since the flood?
Or...does anyone else know how a young earth creation version would account for coal?
I mean other than saying "God plunked it down." I'd be interested in an account of coal's origins from organic matter. How come it's associated with rocks bearing impressions of extinct plant species. What rapid process created coal from the organic material in the time allotted. How all this surface material came to be buried so far under ground throughout most of the world. Why it is distributed the way it is around the globe. That sort of thing.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
King of Men, I'd be interested to see your source for that. The Wikipedia page I looked at (admittedly not the best possible source) traces the Goldon Rule back to Ancient Egypt 1970-1640 BCE.
Edit: Also, your point is kind of moot since weren't arguing the origin of the Rule, but the fact that it is a moral lesson in the Bible that has stood the test of time.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
To King of Men and ssywak:
Neither of your above series of propositions represents my reasoning with regard to scripture. The first note is that the Bible is not one book; it is a compilation of several books. When looking at them for purposes of reliability, it is true that I believe they are all equally true and authoritative, but that does not mean I support that unconditionally for all books simultaneously. Here is a more accurate reflection of my reasoning:
1. A claim is made that there was once a man who died and then lived again due to his identification with the creator of all reality. - Subreasoning: Due to various historical evidences including the reaction of his followers, the unlikeliness of his claims to be "successful" in the Greco-Roman world, and the global impact of the movement he started, I accept this claim as true. 2. Given this claim, this man should be able to speak as an absolute authority on both moral/spiritual and historical truth (the one does not follow from the other). 3. I deem the textual evidence sufficient for this man's teachings and the teachings of his followers to be reliably discerned in the present day. 4. These writings indicate that this man fully affirmed the moral and historical scriptural authority of the books of the Old Testament.
Therefore, I accept both the moral and historical teachings of the Old Testament as authoritative - however there is obviously much more historical teaching than moral teaching (even laws given for the people of Israel are historical, not necessarily moral).
So in effect, my views are centered not on scripture in themselves but on the event that validates them, the resurrection. If point (1) above could be shown to be false (such as, by finding the bones of Jesus) then I would abandon my view of the authority of scripture because I would see no guarantee to their truth above any other historical paradigm, including Rig-Vedas, materialistic naturalism, etc. So to Juxtapose: I am not absolutely sure of all this either. I could be entirely wrong from the start. But as you suggest, this is the "best I have" with what I've seen, and I find that using the Bible as an interpretive paradigm for ancient history has not caused me to jump through sufficient hoops to reject that.
[ January 09, 2006, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Avin ]
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
Bob_Scopatz : To anyone who shares my views, there are four ways anything that is found under the earth can have arrived there:
1. It was originally created there 2. It was deposited there between creation and the flood 3. It was deposited there by the flood itself 4. It was deposited there since the flood
Given our assumptions, and what we know of the size of the earth, the vast majority of material in the earth is still roughly in the way it was when it was originally created (1), since events in 2, 3, and 4, could only have primarily effected the earth's crust. Out of what is remaining, the vast majority of material found would be attributed to (3). Period 2 is thought to have left little traces because it is hypothesized that the environment was more stable, having been created perfect and only marred by sin, and therefore less prone to natural disasters. Period 4 would then primarily have left traces following events such as local floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.
I'm not a geologist so I can't defend this with much more than what I've already stated, but given that, it's my belief that most coal was therefore formed in the flood.
For those discussing the Golden Rule: in my previous post, it should be clear that I don't view the Bible's moral teachings as authoritative because I believe they were first, nor would I exclude the fact that other civilizations would have come up with moral teachings that the Bible would encourage. So it may very well be the case that Jesus explicitly knew that he was referencing an idea from other cultures as well as his own; that does not make it less significant. (Similarly, it may very well be that alternate versions of Biblical history, such as the Gilgamesh account of the flood, predate the Biblical version - that does not mean the Biblical version is less accurate).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So in effect, my views are centered not on scripture in themselves but on the event that validates them, the resurrection. If point (1) above could be shown to be false (such as, by finding the bones of Jesus) then I would abandon my view of the authority of scripture because I would see no guarantee to their truth above any other historical paradigm
This is a remarkably flimsy worldview, isn't it? After all, despite your own claim for #1, the evidence is astonishingly poor for this particular argument. Basically, you CHOOSE to believe in the Resurrection despite the complete lack of supporting evidence. Why not, then, just CHOOSE to believe in the accompanying morality?
Let's look at your evidence for the Resurrection AND the following argument that resurrection implies moral authority:
quote:Due to various historical evidences including... 1) the reaction of his followers
We have only third-party accounts of the reactions of his followers, unless you assume that the Bible is in fact eyewitness evidence. Even then, we have a single book that purports to describe the reaction of a handful of men. It is far easier to invent a reaction in fiction than to resurrect someone, I assume. Moreover, another alternative is that the reaction described is genuine, but that his followers were legitimately hoodwinked; after all, the Romans are said to have posted a guard at the door of the tomb as a result of exactly that concern.
quote: 2) the unlikeliness of his claims to be "successful" in the Greco-Roman world
I'm not sure what you mean by this. At the time, MANY prophets made this sort of claim; certainly many successful religious movements made this kind of argument. The belief that one's founding prophet in some way overcame death is hardly unique to Christianity.
quote:3) and the global impact of the movement he started
There are a number of global religions. Which other ones are also true?
quote: Given this claim, this man should be able to speak as an absolute authority on both moral/spiritual and historical truth.
Why? What about coming back from the dead -- or, more accurately, being SAID to have come back from the dead -- makes a book that claims to speak for you automatically an authority on Truth? I don't actually see how one automatically follows from the other.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
1) Bible v.s. Science being wrong.
When a scientific "fact" is proven wrong it is called progress, books are rewritten, arguments are formalized, and some people may loose thier jobs.
When a biblical "dogma" is considered to be wrong it is called heresy, people are imprisoned, tortured, executed, wars are fought, people die.
2) Avin, Very nice rebuttal.
You left out 5. Satan placed the coal and its fossils there to tempt man away from God.
The only flaw I see in your reasoning is the following:
5) A claim is made that there was once a man who due to his identification with the creator of all reality, became enlightened. - Subreasoning: Due to various historical evidences including the reaction of his followers, the unlikeliness of his claims to be "successful" in the Post-Roman world, and the global impact of the movement he started, I accept this claim as true.
6) Hence I should become a Muslim.
Similar arguments can be made for Budhism--who's followers affected a much greater part of the world population.
Science was not created to combat religion. It was created as a tool to determine which beliefs are the right ones. Stacking up holy book to argue against holy book only creates destruction, which almost no one believes is in service to God.
You have faith that is admirable. So does the Muslim in Iraq and the Hindu in the mountains of Tibet. How do I, someone who is looking for faith, determine which beliefs are correct? I use what limited abilities God gave me, that of reason and logic.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Similar arguments can be made for Budhism--who's followers affected a much greater part of the world population
How do you figure this? AFAIK Christianity, in its various forms, is the dominant world religion, at about 1/3 of the earth's population. (Out of 6 billion, 1 billion Roman Catholic, 1 billion "other.") Islam is second, with almost 1 billion. Buddhism is further down the list.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It is far easier to invent a reaction in fiction than to resurrect someone, I assume.
It also sounds far easier to make up stuff in a science textbook than to turn matter into energy. Does that mean I should reject all those books that claimed matter turns into energy in experiments?
It seems to me that it is not a good idea to reject authoritative sources just because it is easy to lie and because what they are saying seems strange to you.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
Huamnkind has repeatedly shown that it is capable of turning matter into energy.
There is only one supposedly "recognized" resurrection, and that class of event has never been repeated. Ever. Unless you want to credit accounts in the "Weekly World News," in articles right next to such classics as "Batboy Escapes Again!" In other words, no valid scientific documentation of what would be an easy thing to document (don't you think?)
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:When a scientific "fact" is proven wrong it is called progress, books are rewritten, arguments are formalized, and some people may loose thier jobs.
When a biblical "dogma" is considered to be wrong it is called heresy, people are imprisoned, tortured, executed, wars are fought, people die.
Dan, I note the difference in the beginnings of both of thsoe sentences. When a scientific idea is definitively "proven" wrong, then it's ahrd to argue with. But what happens when it is merely "considered" to be wrong, but not yet proven? You get a lot of bitter fighting, that same way you do with religion. If scientists were as likely to hold political power as religious leaders are, then you can bet there'd be some arrests, too.
Everyone hates it when precious dogmas are challenged, be they religious, philisophical, scientific, historical, or political dogmas. The last one there has probably led to more deaths than the rest combined. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have any politics, or that political opinions are inferior to other sorts of opinions Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Political opinions are determined differently, and they're typically harder 'n hell to verify.
I know that, given today's science, "Cold Fusion" is a fantasy. But how about "Trickle Down Economics", or tax breaks for the filthy rich?
And just what do mean by "opinions," pup? Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
TomDavidson,
This subject seems to me more a more fruitful discussion than the whole Creation/Evolution bit, particularly since as I said, I take that on authority of the resurrection. To respond to your points:
quote:Moreover, another alternative is that the reaction described is genuine, but that his followers were legitimately hoodwinked;
I find this scenario unlikely, particularly given the extent to which they were persecuted despite the fact that prior to the crucifixion, persecution made them flee and scatter by their own admission. Furthermore, the biblical accounts (particularly Acts) describe the actions taken to convince others of the truth of the resurrection "reasoning" and "proving;" not actions that are likely to be convincing if they themselves were duped or if their proofs could easily be countered - such as by the Jews or Romans producing the dead body.
quote:after all, the Romans are said to have posted a guard at the door of the tomb as a result of exactly that concern.
So are you of the opinion that the Romans were beat up by the disciples?
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by this. At the time, MANY prophets made this sort of claim; certainly many successful religious movements made this kind of argument. The belief that one's founding prophet in some way overcame death is hardly unique to Christianity.
I don't mean just the fact of the resurrection itself (although that is part of it), but also the circumstances surrounding it - for instance, the fact that the first witnesses to the resurrection were women, who would not have constituted a reliable witness - and the method of death, that is, crucifixion, which would not often inspire new converts unless it could conceivably be shown to have been a necessity for something as incredible as the resurrection. For instance, see here for a list of some other reasons why Christianity should not have survived in its time. You can certainly bring up arguments in favor of Christianity's survival, but there were many other messianic movements within second Temple Judaism; why should Christianity have survived with the aforementioned "problems" when so many others failed?
quote:There are a number of global religions. Which other ones are also true?
The point of my using this as evidence for Christianity is that its claims are worth (carefully) considering because of this fact, which distinguishes it from other religious movements which failed to have significant reach or influence. Other global religions also worth carefully considering because of their reach do indeed include Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Naturalism, etc. I cannot claim to have studied all of these in depth (Buddhism probably more than others, since I was born in a Buddhist country) but the fact is that atheistic Naturalism seems to be the other most major contender for historical claims, since the others are more "spiritual" and vague about actual history. I'm not too interested in a religion that helps me to live a good life unless I know for certain that that's the best I can get; otherwise, I'm interested in living in a reality that I know to be true.
Dan_Raven:
quote:You have faith that is admirable. So does the Muslim in Iraq and the Hindu in the mountains of Tibet. How do I, someone who is looking for faith, determine which beliefs are correct? I use what limited abilities God gave me, that of reason and logic.
I agree with you completely. I disagree with some of the other Christians in this thread who base their faith primarily on subjective experience, whether they claim it to be personal revelation or a relationship they claim with God. I too have subjective experience that seems to favor Christianity, but the problem with subjective experience is that it is very fickle; I try my best not to live my life based on primarily that experience but on rather what to the best of my knowledge I have found to be true. I too claim a personal relationship with God, but relationships can be draining sometimes and exciting at others, and I would be a poor subject of a deity if I based my faith on such a relationship. I would encourage you to continue to use these abilities to discern the truth about reality and I would welcome further discussion in that venue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So are you of the opinion that the Romans were beat up by the disciples?
If my only two options were "the guards were bypassed -- either bribed, beaten, misled, etc. -- by the disciples, or even a single disciple acting without the knowledge of the others" and "this guy came back from the dead," I would find the first more likely.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Huamnkind has repeatedly shown that it is capable of turning matter into energy.
Not to me. You're asking me to take your word for it - and the word of a bunch of other people and books, who either claim to have observed it or have heard it from other people who claim to have observed it.
And although I could in theory perform an experiment to show it, in all practicality I lack the resources (and possibly the scientific know-how)to do anything but take your word for it or choose not to.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
Tom, that's a good point, and I concede that this is logical in most circumstances, but how much circumstantial evidence does it take to build up a case for an event that otherwise would be considered impossible? When you combine this choice with some of the others that are described above, with yet more that you can probably find in any standard apologetics surrounding the resurrection as a historical event, it begins to build a case. This is sufficient that I feel I have reasonable evidence to accept this extremely unlikely event as likely, and although I will sometimes encounter other circumstantial evidences to the contrary (such as for instance, the disunity of the church today being an obviously poor representative of the intentions of Jesus), I am still convinced that this paradigm is more explanatory for what I can see of history and reality than any alternative I have encountered.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Huamnkind has repeatedly shown that it is capable of turning matter into energy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to me. You're asking me to take your word for it - and the word of a bunch of other people and books, who either claim to have observed it or have heard it from other people who claim to have observed it.
And although I could in theory perform an experiment to show it, in all practicality I lack the resources (and possibly the scientific know-how)to do anything but take your word for it or choose not to.
Clearly this is going to be my most stupid question ever and I must be missing something, but couldn't you, for instance, burn it?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
KM,
In burning something, you still have the original matter left. It's just changed its form (such as turning to carbon, or to soot). Atomic energy actually converts some of the matter (some of its mass) into energy, and not into a different physical form. The mass actually "goes away."
But, of course, unless Treso has himself actually seen something burning, then he's not going to take any of our words for it that things can actually be burned. And unless he's actually seen that the earth is, in fact, a sphere, he's just going to have to continue believing that it's a large, flat plate, supported on the back of a very large number of turtles.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, ssywak. I thought it was a dumb question - but the matter is so much less after you burn something...
And isn't one enormous turtle?
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
kmbboots, it just seems like less matter because the resulting material is devoid of water (released as vapor) and short carbon dioxide (produced by the fire). If you include these gasses with the resulting ash, you would find they are the same as the original material plus oxygen in different chemical configurations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I know this isn't meant to be elementary physics for Kate and I appreciate your patience.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
here I go again...
What about food? Don't we convert that to energy?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
We convert it to glucose, which is used for fuel or converted to fat.
The food that we don't convert is, umm, disposed of.
You're a girl?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: We convert it to glucose, which is used for fuel or converted to fat.
So isn't that energy then. Am I being particularly thick?
quote: You're a girl?
Why is everyone surprised by that?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I knew she was a girl. A guy wouldn't use the term "boots" in his screen name.
Sheesh! Learn to recognize the clues, people!
Of course, Treso won't believe she's a girl unless...oh, the heck with it!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It was a joke.
I made a similar comment to you on another website.
And yes, that is energy.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Not to me. You're asking me to take your word for it - and the word of a bunch of other people and books, who either claim to have observed it or have heard it from other people who claim to have observed it.
And although I could in theory perform an experiment to show it, in all practicality I lack the resources (and possibly the scientific know-how)to do anything but take your word for it or choose not to.
Gee, that is the same way I feel about Paris, France.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was a joke.
I made a similar comment to you on another website.
I was just playing along. I should have added a smiley thingy.
I am a woman. Really Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Jokes are hard without facial expressions.
And I should have also used a smiley. But I hate them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that after the TMI thread, my gender was pretty well established. Hee.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, that's a good point, and I concede that this is logical in most circumstances, but how much circumstantial evidence does it take to build up a case for an event that otherwise would be considered impossible? When you combine this choice with some of the others that are described above, with yet more that you can probably find in any standard apologetics surrounding the resurrection as a historical event, it begins to build a case.
Except that it doesn't, because none of the individual pieces of "evidence" are themselves compelling, or even evidence in the traditional sense of the word. I'd be glad to discuss each individual point of contention with you, if you'd like; I'm fairly confident that not one of them actually describes a likely scenario.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Avin,
Incomplete.
Coal is organic matter. We know one way of creating it -- compression over long periods of time.
But the organic matter -- billions of cubic meters of it world wide, had to come from somewhere. It had to have been compressed over some period of time.
It would be a good idea to do more than simply say "God placed it there and speeded up the transition from plant to coal" because, ultimately, the charge you make about God being a trickster if the Bible isn't literally true applies just as much to a God who would fudge the timeline of converting plant material to coal. We have Dan's alternative that it was Satan doing it to tempt man away from knowledge of God by placing these stumbling blocks of confusing physical evidence before us. That's a possibility, I suppose, that Creationism could put forward. But it also has a problem because Scripture includes passages about how the natural world around us is sufficient to convince people that God exists and was/is the creator.
To me, I think this kind of thing boxes one into a corner of believing God MUST have been either a dupe of Satan, a willing co-consipirator, or the sole perpetrator of one or the other hoax.
Insistence on a Biblical literacy that requires the Genesis account to be true and complete (or sufficient) history or all support for belief in the Bible is undermined seems to me to be trying to judge the Bible's historical content from a relatively recent definition of what history IS.
It contains elements of history, to be sure. And for the time in which it was recorded, it probably passed for a historically accurate. But was presentation of history the real purpose? Or, is a moral treatise which has value independent of it's value as history?
That is up to each person to decide. But I will say that I would hesitate to teach a potential believer that the criterion for belief is acceptance of the Biblical account of the Creation story. That is a small bit of a much larger book that presents moral lessons placed in an historical context. Since we like to say that the Bible has lessons for all time, the relevance of the context is more complex than merely for its level of historical accuracy.
...
Tres, go burn some coal. Matter converts to energy quite nicely, IMHO.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Kmbboots, and Bob (although I'm not sure if Bob is being facetious or not) no actual matter is destroyed in burning coal, or consuming food. In both processes (VERY simply) molecular bonds are broken, but these bonds are made of energy, not matter. More complex molecules are simply broken down into less complex ones, while net matter remains the same. Only in a nuclear reaction is matter truly converted to energy.
Slight digression here. This one has always bothered me. If God created the Earth and life to populate it (and the universe, etc), and the Bible is a divinely inspired, but man-made creation, wouldn't the better path to learning about God be to study the world around you rather than reading a book that people several thousand years ago may or may not have gotten right? It seems more direct to me.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Speaking of coal formation, isn't it cool that dinosaur footprints can be found in the ceilings of coal mines?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Slight digression here. This one has always bothered me. If God created the Earth and life to populate it (and the universe, etc), and the Bible is a divinely inspired, but man-made creation, wouldn't the better path to learning about God be to study the world around you rather than reading a book that people several thousand years ago may or may not have gotten right? It seems more direct to me.
Why would the two need to be mutually exclusive? And, assuming God did bother to talk directly to specific people, how would we learn this by studying nature?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Certainly, they wouldn't need to be mutually exclusive; I'm not at all suggesting that Christianity should abandon the Bible. Perhaps this will make my point clearer, though. Ever play the game where a long line of people repeat a message to one another down the line? At the end, the message is nothing like what it originally was, no matter how good the intentions of those in the line. When I read the bible (I mean this in the singular, past-tense; I'm agnostic, and was curious) I'm not just reading the word of God, but the word of God as has been translated, edited, and added to by man. It's hard for me to imagine that a similar phenomenon wouldn't occur. Again, this doesn't mean that I think Christians should consider the Bible worthless. If you wanted to learn about Michaelangelo, wouldn't it be most productive to study his works, with a textbook on the side to aide you? Certainly it would be far better than simply reading the text alone.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There is a small, but nonzero, conversion of matter into energy when coal (or anything else) burns. Consider : The equation is
C + O2 -> CO2 + photon
The energy for that photon has to come from somewhere; specifically, the mass of the (C + O2) system. You will therefore find that the mass of a CO2 molecule is very slightly smaller than the sum of the masses of a carbon atom and an oxygen molecule, just as the mass of a helium atom is less than the mass of two protons and two neutrons.
However, with chemical reactions, the energies released are on the order of electron-volts, compared to the thousands or millions of electron-volts released in nuclear reactions. It is therefore an extremely good approximation to say that no mass is converted. In fact, the effect is probably too small to be measurable with current equipment.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Juxtapose,
So, you are saying that both are good ways to study God?
If so, I agree wholeheartedly.
They go quite well together and the study of one enriches the other, and vice versa, in my experience.
...
re coal: burning coal releases energy stored in the coal. If there is heat coming off of the item burned, then matter is not preserved 100%. Some is converted to heat energy.
Nobody said I had to completely convert matter to energy, did they?
The energy came from somewhere, didn't it? If not from the coal, I think we need someone to explain the source of this magical stuff that heated the air surrounding the coal that we burned.
Unless our understanding of Physics has changed radically in the past few years, release of heat when burning something is through the conversion of matter to energy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, come to think of it, you could possibly get the energy from re-arranging the electrons. Similar to jumping from an excited state to a less excited one. This may be equivalent to lowering the mass, though; I'm not quite sure.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unless our understanding of Physics has changed radically in the past few years, release of heat when burning something is through the conversion of matter to energy.
My old understanding (from high school chemistry) was that the heat came from the energy that had been present in chemical bonds.
I got the impression from one of the popular physics books - Brief History, Elegant Universe, or somesuch - never confirmed, that the energy in chemical bonds is measurable as mass.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But, of course, unless Treso has himself actually seen something burning, then he's not going to take any of our words for it that things can actually be burned. And unless he's actually seen that the earth is, in fact, a sphere, he's just going to have to continue believing that it's a large, flat plate, supported on the back of a very large number of turtles.
You are attacking the opposite position of the one I just took. I said we SHOULD trust sources until we have a decent reason to believe otherwise. Hence, I DO trust when my textbook says things burn, and I DO trust when people tell me the world is round.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But we do have a decent reason to believe people do not rise from the dead : To wit, we have never seen it happen.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Yeah, well....
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What? You've seen someone rise from the dead?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What about John Travolta's career?
Hey-oh!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Never heard of him. It can't be very lively.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Wow. Mental note not to use KoM as an entertainment barometer.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But we do have a decent reason to believe people do not rise from the dead : To wit, we have never seen it happen.
Well, actually there are documented occurrences of people being in a medically dead state that have been resuscitated. Regardless, the very fact that we have a decent reason to believe that people do not rise from the dead indicates how miraculous Jesus' resurrection actually was, thus making it very compelling evidence regarding his identity. Of course, that would also require believing the documentation of his resurrection, which some clearly do not believe.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That depends entirely on how you define 'medically dead'. Recovering from having a stopped heart, for example, would not be regarded as particularly miraculous anymore.
But in any case, this kind of undermines the argument. If there are people who have recovered from being, to all outward inspection, dead, then there is nothing special about the resurrection anymore - that is, unless you want to claim that those other people were also divine. You then have to explain how you know that recovering from apparent death is miraculous in the one case, and naturalistic in the others.
Either the event is unique, which requires a lot more evidence than third-party accounts. Or else it is not, in which case, the argument for divinity is destroyed - you cannot advance something Joe Bloggs can do as evidence for being the Son of GOd. So which is it?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I am SO glad I never read this thread
Ignorance is bliss??? Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Either the event is unique, which requires a lot more evidence than third-party accounts. Or else it is not, in which case, the argument for divinity is destroyed - you cannot advance something Joe Bloggs can do as evidence for being the Son of GOd.
You're limiting the options to only the two that fit your argument. Here, let me explain a third option whereby it is entirely possible to view an event that is no longer unique to be very much miraculous.
First, the fact that we can resuscitate a person from a medically dead state proves nothing except that life after "death" is entirely possible. However, life after three days of death is another matter. With the knowledge and technology we have now, it wouldn't take much to speculate that eventually mankind may someday have the ability to "resurrect" a person back to life after an extended period of "death" but doing so would undoubtedly require a great deal of technological/scientific knowledge, such that would have been unavailable to humans two thousand years ago.
If Moses did in fact part the Red Sea with nothing more than a staff, I think it would still be considered miraculous even though in modern times we can simulate the effect with magnetic fields or some other type of manipulation.
So instead of undermining or destroying the argument for divinity, as you suggest, it can actually strengthen it.
So to sum up, we do have decent reason to believe that people do not spontaneously rise from the dead, but we also see that the idea is not completely impossible, ie. a resurrection doesn't contradict the laws of physics. It's a believable event that is miraculous when considering the time and place that it occurred.
I do agree that for many people it may require a lot more evidence than third-party accounts to believe that it actually happened, but I'm not sure what type of evidence you would actually expect there to be beyond a bunch of people saying they witnessed his death and then saw and talked to him several days later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For one thing, I'd like to hear from a "bunch" of people. The Bible doesn't provide that, sadly.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
Juxtapose; I like your analogy of studying Michaelangelo. Suppose to draw a further analogy, we wanted to specifically study how the Sistine Chapel was painted.
It is useful whenever studying history to distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and circumstantial evidence.
If Michaelangelo himself wrote an account of the painting, a diary while he was painting, or wrote letters concerning the painting, these would be considered primary sources.
One level down from that: if someone else watched as he painted and wrote similar documents, they would also be considered primary sources, but not as useful to you as Michaelangelo's own documents, because in this case you can see the specifics of what happened but not as much of the motivations behind it.
Secondary sources would be biographies of Michaelangelo, or external accounts of how the Sistine chapel was painted. In other words, anything that used primary sources for its sources.
Tertiary sources would be articles and sources that used the material above as its sources, and is therefore hardly worth considering for any serious study.
Now, to look at circumstancial evidence: the Sistine Chapel itself is actually circumstancial evidence! Circumstancial evidence is any evidence, either physical or written accounts, that were not direct witnesses to the event in question or are unable to speak for themselves. Therefore any material things, which includes the Sistene Chapel, the object of the event, is still circumstantial evidence. Written accounts of other people describing the Chapel, both before and after painting who did not witness the painting itself, is also circumstantial evidence. If we had material evidence concerning the amount of paint that was used, the sort of supplies that were used, etc, that is also all circumstancial evidence.
Now, what is the role of each of the above materials in studying the event of painting? The answer is that written sources must be analyzed in the light of several factors, the most important of which include primacy (whether it is a primary source or not), reasons to lie/exaggerate, and corroboration with other sources and the circumstantial evidence.
So in other words, the role of the circumstantial evidence serves primarily to validate testimony, but is only one factor among many in doing so. Of course the Sistine chapel can still be studied for its artistic value on its own, but that is not the purpose of the current inquiry. If we want to learn how it was painted, the only reason we would have for studying it on its own is if no written source texts existed or if all that existed were discredited. The relevent thing about this is that you cannot presuppose the non-existence of source material, establish an interpretation of the circumstantial evidence, and then check this interpretation against a source that you then consider. It has to be the other way around: you consider the interpretation you expect given the authority of a source material, then see if that interpretation fits the evidence.
Therefore, because of my views on the historicity of the resurrection, I consider the Bible to be a primary source for all history that it is relevent to, which includes the creation of the earth. Therefore the creation itself, being circumstantial evidence for that event, should be interpreted by the source material first, and then be checked to see if the actual evidence is consistent with this interpretation. Someone who is an atheist would logically not consider the Bible to be a primary source, but would also delegate it to being circumstantial evidence, and so therefore consider all circumstantial evidence equal.
I do not think that my expectation of creation based on the Bible fits 100% with the physical evidence I observe. For instance, I don't know how to reconcile the problem of distant starlight with a young universe. I have heard various creationist theories presented, some of which sound plausible, and all of which gives me some hope that someday it might be reconciled, but for now I count that as circumstantial evidence against my interpretation of Genesis. Yet that does not invalidate it completely, because I feel that my interpretation still is corroborated overall, and that it has more circumstantial evidence in agreement with it than other paradigms do, but most importantly is that I trust the source itself more than my abilities.
By the way, as I stated in the case of studying the Sistine chapel for its artistic merits, the above reasoning does not preclude study of the creation for its scientific AND artistic merits apart from historical material for which the Bible speaks with precedence. Also, another point to those who make the point that creation is made by God but the Bible written by men: according to the Bible itself, the creation was made by God but cursed because of men, whereas the books of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) were written by men but affirmed by God (Jesus) as being authoritative.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But we do have a decent reason to believe people do not rise from the dead : To wit, we have never seen it happen.
But depending on whether or not seeing fire burning counts, I don't think I've ever seen matter turn into energy either - or countless other scientific and other claims that I do, in fact, believe are true. I definitely have never seen a proton, for instance. Or a platypus, for that matter, and those seem to be pretty bizarre creatures. So, having never seen something is not necessary a decent reason to assume someone is lying when they claim to have seen it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The amount of time light takes to travel from distant stars to reach Earth is circumstantial evidence ?!?
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
No, the facts that we can measure light's speed, have posited it to be constant, and can make certain trigonometric observations regarding stars are circumstantial evidences of the creation. The amount of time the light takes to travel from the stars to us is an inference that follows from the previous evidence in the absence of a primary source. This circumstantial evidence as I said, because of said inference, seems to cast disfavor on a primary source that seems to imply that such a length of time has not come to pass, but it is important to make a distinction between the evidence itself, and our interpretation of it. Such a primary source would only be "refuted" as testimony if it could be shown that it is inconsistent with any possible interpretation of the evidence, not just the interpretation that seems most likely given the absense of historical sources. As it stands, the inference seeming likely now, this just casts disfavor on the source, which as I stated, is a problem, but not so much of a problem that I am willing to reject it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So tell me, what evidence would you accept? And please realise, if the answer is "I can't imagine any", then your entire line of reasoning on "I don't think the inconsistency is big enough to discard the Bible" is kind of suspect. Because if it could never be big enough, then you are not, in fact, evaluating the evidence rationally, are you?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: And please realise, if the answer is "I can't imagine any", then your entire line of reasoning on "I don't think the inconsistency is big enough to discard the Bible" is kind of suspect. Because if it could never be big enough, then you are not, in fact, evaluating the evidence rationally, are you?
While this may be true, it isn't necessarily. You don't know how much evidence he has that a) the Bible is true and b) it literally describes how the earth was created.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sure, but if the evidence is indeed being considered rationally, then for any amount X, there exists some amount X+1 that will force a re-interpretation.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
Your query is certainly valid; I'll try my best to answer if you would try your best to answer the inverse of how much evidence would it take to accept the resurrection as historical for you.
It's of course very hard to delineate exactly "how much" is enough evidence for or against something. Of course, you cannot assign probabilities to any individual argument, collect all and use some mathematical formula to derive a result and say that when the resulting probability passes a certain threshold then it is worthy of being considered true. There are a few things that I think I could say for certain, though. For one, as I already mentioned on this thread, if there could be reliable evidence given that Jesus is still dead, I would certainly reject the resurrection and probably Christianity or the notion that the Hebrew creation account is in any way special. This could take the form of his body or remnants of it being produced in the present day, or reliable historical evidence that it was produced at some time in the past, or possibly even an explanation of how it existed and a logical reason for why it was not brought forth to refute Christianity at any point in the past, particularly in the first couple centuries. Second, if any reliable evidence concerning significant textual manipulation of the scriptures or rewriting of history were to be discovered (not just minor glosses, but significant doctrine changing or fabrication), along with the reason why it was not objected to contemporaneously and why it has not been discovered before, and why up to now only evidence of remarkable faithfulness has been the case.
Another far-off scenario is contact or discovery of an alien civilization. These would cause me to reject a lot of my interpretation, although if contact with the aliens prove that they share a similar faith in God, then I would most likely retain what we have in common, but in the case of no/limited contact due to distance or contact that reveals they have no idea who this God-thing is, I would probably greatly reconsider my entire paradigm of reality.
Other than those major things, I cannot really say what I would deem to be "enough" to be X+1, so to speak, other than the fact that a combination of things would probably be involved.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: In both processes (VERY simply) molecular bonds are broken, but these bonds are made of energy, not matter.
quote: My old understanding (from high school chemistry) was that the heat came from the energy that had been present in chemical bonds.
Aaahhhh. Now this makes sense. Thanks, for the lesson, guys.
quote: That is up to each person to decide. But I will say that I would hesitate to teach a potential believer that the criterion for belief is acceptance of the Biblical account of the Creation story. That is a small bit of a much larger book that presents moral lessons placed in an historical context. Since we like to say that the Bible has lessons for all time, the relevance of the context is more complex than merely for its level of historical accuracy.
Yes. Exactly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For one, as I already mentioned on this thread, if there could be reliable evidence given that Jesus is still dead, I would certainly reject the resurrection and probably Christianity or the notion that the Hebrew creation account is in any way special. This could take the form of his body or remnants of it being produced in the present day, or reliable historical evidence that it was produced at some time in the past, or possibly even an explanation of how it existed and a logical reason for why it was not brought forth to refute Christianity at any point in the past...
What if Jesus never existed at all? How would one produce his body?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To be fair, I suppose Avin would also accept sufficiently good evidence that Jesus never existed; though proving the non-existence of one particular man 2000 years ago... Time machine, anyone? I think I'll add that a sufficiently cruel death for Avin himself or a close relative might convince him; it suffices for many people. Going back to the historical attempt, perhaps if I produced evidence that the Resurrection was faked? That is, there really was a Jesus, and his followers or some subset of them stole away the body and substituted a close relative. (I have no idea what form such evidence might take; I am merely throwing out hypotheticals.)
Anyway, we seem to have gotten to the point where Avin will give up his faith if the Resurrection proves false; that seems reasonable. However, I would have to ask what distinguishes the Resurrection from the many very similar accounts of miracles in other faiths? Why Jesus, and not the Buddhas, or the Rig-Vedas? Why not the magic of Odin?
Finally, to answer your question in turn : A simple manifestation of a god's voice will do. Other people need to hear it; careful examination should reveal no fakery; and it should give clear and plain instructions along the lines of "This is why I've been quiet so long; these are the parts of the bible (or other holy book) that are actually important; and incidentally, if you do this experiment you will get that result." (Where the experiment, obviously, reveals something humans did not already know, and preferably something we did not suspect.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, by the way, if we found a creature with wheels on a macroscopic scale, I would at least consider the possibility of it being intelligently designed. I just don't see a way for a wheel to evolve; what could possibly be the intermediate steps? (Unless, of course, we also happened to find fossils or relatives of the first creature showing what the intermediate steps actually were. Just because I can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't exist.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am still interested in this question, should Avin choose to answer it.
quote:However, I would have to ask what distinguishes the Resurrection from the many very similar accounts of miracles in other faiths? Why Jesus, and not the Buddhas, or the Rig-Vedas? Why not the magic of Odin?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Presumably, Jay, Farmgirl, or starLisa will be logging on at some point. Although perhaps they won't enter a thread started by me.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But I thought I'd start by defining the terms properly, since 'kind' seems generally to be defined as 'whatever difference is sufficient that some kind of argument can be made for us not having seen it.'
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Karl.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)