The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

CDfm said:

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean Christ and the apostles were ignorant of how mankind started out and were only repeating what they read in the OT? Or do you mean they knew the OT account of Creation, the Flood, the plagues in Egypt, Jonah in the fish, etc. were fables/metaphors?

I am not sure I understand your question.

They said that which was necessary to understand the world and yes some of its allegorical. A central theme of Christs ministry was to simplify things and not over complicate them.

It shouldn't matter how/when Man was created anyway only that we "are".

Genghiz Cohen

CDfm wrote: »

It shouldn't matter how/when Man was created anyway only that we "are".

If we knew where we came from, we can guess where we're going.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

OK, but he is an evolutionary biologist - not a creationist. So it seems your tree is not the stuff of scientific certainty you assume it to be.

Why not? Because one scientist says so and gives no evidence? I don't know what he's basing his views on, but it's certainly not eukaryote biology. His views on the tree tend to be touted by him and others as "philosophical", whatever that might mean. To me it seems like he's mostly concerned with how we represent convergence and complex breeding relationships, which has very little to do with the overall nested tree. Which is not at all the metaphor that he suggests.

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

I'm no mathematician, but that seems strange to me. Would the number of speciations not be 8000x greater? So if one species pair led to 100 species in 100 years, 8000 species pairs would produce 800,000 species in a similar time.

Or is my basis maths confused?

I think it might be- the overall rate of speciation is our concern. Following your example: 1 species giving us 100 species in 100 years gives us a rate of 1 new species per year (counting the original species). 8000 giving 800,000 in 100 years (which is the same rate per starting species) means that we get 7920 new species per year. Sure, lots of new species is more plausible the larger your starting species number, but it's still a phenomenally high rate and totally unrecorded by anyone at any time in history.

CDfm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

If we knew where we came from, we can guess where we're going.

Then the thread would be pointless.

Genghiz Cohen

CDfm wrote: »

Then the thread would be pointless.

The Mad Hatter

CDfm wrote: »

Then the thread would be pointless.

Ah, if only life had a 'Page 1' button...

robindch

Rooks smarter than previously thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8059688.stm

Demonstrate use of metatools.

A Primal Nut

robindch wrote: »

Rooks smarter than previously thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8059688.stm

Demonstrate use of metatools.

What are the chances the lead author would be called Christopher Bird, eh?:pac:

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Rooks smarter than previously thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8059688.stm

Demonstrate use of metatools.

Robin - can I ask what is the reasoning for posting this ???

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Robin - can I ask what is the reasoning for posting this ???

In the words of eddie vedder "That's evolution baby!!". :P

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Robin - can I ask what is the reasoning for posting this ???

Well, creationists often suggest that humans are clearly "not animals" (and thus could not be related to other species) due to features x and y which are unique to us. But it turns out that very few features really are. We see many of our most prized traits in other species including self-awareness, theory of mind, creativity, invention, morality and altruism. These are obvious in other primate species, mostly in great apes. Surprisingly, the family of birds to which rooks and magpies belong seems to be a particularly good example of a couple of these features too. Rooks are great tool users and even modify their tools. Magpies display an element of self-awareness- when presented with a mirror, they are quickly able to identify the image as being of themselves rather than another bird. This is a test failed by dogs and most humans under the age of two years.

It's increasingly becoming clear that humans are unique only in the extent and combination of mental traits we possess. Few, if any, of the traits are actually unique to us by themselves.

CDfm

AFAIK nobody has suggested that animals dont have tool using skills or self awareness.

How can you say its evolution as you would have to have a control group yonks back that didnt do that?

It doesnt say anything to bolster the argument in the here an know other than say that rooks use tools in obtaining food.

Dont seagulls drop shellfish against rocks to break the shells and collect the meat - so its fairly commonplace in birds and is not a new development.Where is this argument supposed to lead.

The reason for pointing this out is that some scientists hype up claims and make wild leaps in logic which then undermines the science and where the links are tenuos and the "Facts" conjecture.

This is brought home in this article on Ida http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6350095.ece

I dont believe humans are unique in using tools. I also believe the leap on Ida is too great.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

can I ask what is the reasoning for posting this ???

Yes, you can ask. Actually, I'll assume you have asked and answer anyway:

1. It's cool
2. It shows real biologists doing real work making real discoveries
3. It suggests that brain-based problem-solving is not unique to humans
4. It suggests that metatool use is not unique to humans
5. And each one of the above frightens creationists and this is the creationism thread, after all

CDfm wrote: »

Dont seagulls drop shellfish against rocks to break the shells and collect the meat - so its fairly commonplace in birds and is not a new development.

You missed the point of the article. Dropping shells onto rocks is first-order tool use (using something to get at food). Second order requires an accurate brain-based physics model, capable of two physical steps (that's the video of the bird (a) picking up a stone and (b) dropping the stone onto a plate which tips food out onto the table). Third order is the bit with the wire (the bird (a) picks up + bends the wire (b) dips it into the tube (c) draws out the container holding the food).

At the moment, my kid is two and a half and hasn't got much beyond third/fourth-order tool use (which is impressive enough, btw), and she's still stuck somewhere around first-order/second order intentionality, but that's another story.

2Scoops

robindch wrote: »

...
[*]It shows real biologists doing real work making real discoveries...

Scary, indeed, for creationists!

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

AFAIK nobody has suggested that animals dont have tool using skills or self awareness.

Not recently, no. The suggestion has been made that humans and animals are dissimilar in many ways and the main traits cited are to do with intelligence and self awareness. Robin is continuing a theme that has recurred several times on this thread.

CDfm wrote: »

How can you say its evolution as you would have to have a control group yonks back that didnt do that?

We know these traits are inherited and selected for, so doesn't that suggest evolution?

CDfm wrote: »

It doesnt say anything to bolster the argument in the here an know other than say that rooks use tools in obtaining food.

Dont seagulls drop shellfish against rocks to break the shells and collect the meat - so its fairly commonplace in birds and is not a new development.Where is this argument supposed to lead.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that rook tool use is new. We're not saying it just showed up yesterday ergo evolution happened. We're saying look how all these animals actually possess traits we once considered unique to us, perhaps even inexplicable in naturalistic terms. They've been around for a long time, perhaps having evolved in ancestors we have in common with birds.

CDfm wrote: »

The reason for pointing this out is that some scientists hype up claims and make wild leaps in logic which then undermines the science and where the links are tenuos and the "Facts" conjecture.

I'm sure some do, that's people for you. That doesn't matter until they're given a platform, typically a credulous media that loves to spin science. But find me the wild conjecture and over-extrapolation in the primary literature.

CDfm wrote: »

This is brought home in this article on Ida http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6350095.ece

I dont believe humans are unique in using tools. I also believe the leap on Ida is too great.

I think you'll find most scientists are pretty unimpressed with the Ida hoo-hah as well. It's a media event, not a scientific breakthrough. leaf through the commentaries in the journals or read blogs written by scientists and you'll see they're variously amused or really annoyed about it all. Ida is a nice primate fossil, actually a very nice one. But she may or may not be a part of our lineage and the actual science is being dwarfed by the media BS. It's crap like this which tends to make scientists wary of engagement with the mainstream, though in this case I understand the media were actively courted.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

You missed the point of the article

Thanks for the Ladybird edition Robin. I can see the logic now.

At the moment, my kid is two and a half and hasn't got much beyond third/fourth-order tool use (which is impressive enough, btw), and she's still stuck somewhere around first-order/second order intentionality, but that's another story.

At that age my son broke into the shopping bags and made himself a coleslaw sandwich. The difference is that humans develop far more and have that potential that birds don't.

Atomic Horror wrote

We know these traits are inherited and selected for, so doesn't that suggest evolution?

It does but it also might suggest learned behaviour too.

They've been around for a long time, perhaps having evolved in ancestors we have in common with birds.

Thanks for the reply but thats the type of leap I find it hard to make. Evolution and inherited traits -no problem there. I equally have a problem with creationism.

But deliberate creation/by God etc sits well for me.Some scientific arguments dont.

Evolution and science fits with that too - well why not. The bible doesnt explain clouds and rain either so thats my criticism of creationism as it doesnt seek to accept/embrace what it sees.

kiffer

CDfm wrote: »

Thanks for the Ladybird edition Robin. I can see the logic now.



At that age my son broke into the shopping bags and made himself a coleslaw sandwich. The difference is that humans develop far more and have that potential that birds don't.

Yes? But the traits themselves are not unique to humans... we've just honed them to a greater degree.

In fact what traits are unique to humans?

Atomic Horror wrote

It does but it also might suggest learned behaviour too.

If they trained the animals to make hooks and tools then you might be right but the point is that that they have learned to make then on their own...

Simple tool use is seen all over the place... But making tools is much more interesting. You could maybe train a dog to perform a trick where you give him a set group of objects and train him to make a tool and to retrieve an object other wise out of reach... but with the dog would just be repeating a learned trick, if the situation later changed too much and he needed to make a hook he would not do so (would he? Hook use seems limited to humans and birds)... The crows and rooks however have showed that given new situations and several new materials they make can make a new tool for the job.

Thanks for the reply but thats the type of leap I find it hard to make. Evolution and inherited traits -no problem there. I equally have a problem with creationism.

... What leap?

But deliberate creation/by God etc sits well for me.Some scientific arguments dont.

Evolution and science fits with that too - well why not. The bible doesnt explain clouds and rain either so thats my criticism of creationism as it doesnt seek to accept/embrace what it sees.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

At that age my son broke into the shopping bags and made himself a coleslaw sandwich.

And my kid does similar things. So, looking at one from the other day, she could figure out she needed to move the piano stool to the piano so that she could ask to be plonked onto the stool to play. But she couldn't seem to figure out that she could have moved a small chair next to the stool so that she could lever herself up onto the stool on her own. Probably won't be long, though, until she does start figuring out stuff like that -- once you get past third order tool use, fourth and higher orders seem to be comparatively straightforward.

CDfm wrote: »

The difference is that humans develop far more and have that potential that birds don't.

Point missed again -- we're not talking about what humans do here, we're talking about what animals do.

And to reiterate what AtomicHorror has said, metatool use is something that up until very recently was thought to happen in humans only. We now know it's not unique to us. We've also learned in recent years that some birds can assess intentionality (that they can figure out what other birds are likely to do in a given situation).

This means that they appear to have two pieces of brain architecture which are believed to form some of the fundamental units of our own brain architecture. And that suggests that they may well experience consciousness as we do, at which point, things become very sticky indeed.

The Mad Hatter

kiffer wrote: »

Hook use seems limited to humans and birds

I remember reading *cough* in Jurassic Park that baboons bend sticks in order to fish grubs and maggots from the ground in order to eat them.

kiffer

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I remember reading *cough* in Jurassic Park that baboons bend sticks in order to fish grubs and maggots from the ground in order to eat them.

...hmmm... I thought they just use the stick straight... they don't actually make a hook in the way that the crows do...

To be on the safe side I should have just said apes and birds :-)
But I'd probably just go the whole hog then and say...
primates and birds... just in cause we find some references to more advanced* tool using monkeys as well...

*Better than hitting it with a rock...

Mickeroo

The vids of the rooks reminded me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHjs-M77JlA

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

And my kid does similar things.

i know its off topic but its cool watching that stuff. Just wait till she puts stuff in the shopping basket and you pay.:)

So, looking at one from the other day, she could figure out she needed to move the piano stool to the piano so that she could ask to be plonked onto the stool to play. But she couldn't seem to figure out that she could have moved a small chair next to the stool so that she could lever herself up onto the stool on her own. Probably won't be long, though, until she does start figuring out stuff like that -- once you get past third order tool use, fourth and higher orders seem to be comparatively straightforward.Point missed again -- we're not talking about what humans do here, we're talking about what animals do.

Thats the thing - I grew up where animals could do stuff and we didn't analyse it so thats not news to me that they can.

And to reiterate what AtomicHorror has said, metatool use is something that up until very recently was thought to happen in humans only. We now know it's not unique to us. We've also learned in recent years that some birds can assess intentionality (that they can figure out what other birds are likely to do in a given situation).

I cant see why it would be unique to us or why people would think so.

This means that they appear to have two pieces of brain architecture which are believed to form some of the fundamental units of our own brain architecture. And that suggests that they may well experience consciousness as we do, at which point, things become very sticky indeed.

Why would that be sticky. A child will attribute human consciousness and talk to a puppy.

Cows will form social groups and communicate needs and go at a predetermined time under their own volution to be milked.

Birds migrate long distances and so do fish. We dont know how.

Now I know there are unrelated actions but its still just a theory as there are many mechanisms and explanations.

If thats a discovery -it states the obvious -like the Law of Gravity existed before Newton.

I cant see how anyone can discount it - you may disagree with its cause but you can't dreny the facts.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I cant see why it would be unique to us or why people would think so.

Most biologists would agree, they just need to show it and learn about it.

CDfm wrote: »

If thats a discovery -it states the obvious -like the Law of Gravity existed before Newton.

Well sure, but he helped explain and predict gravity. There's lots of stuff we come to understand in science that seems like common sense to those of us who are familiar with a given field, but it still takes someone to do the legwork to fully elucidate that and render it into a form that allows explanation and prediction.

And the stickiness that I suspect is being referred to is how findings such as these impact on the ethical treatment of animals. There are many gaps in our understanding of how animal minds work, and they need to be filled. Creationists will see this as an effort to reduce the standing of man, to devalue human life. What's actually happening is that the way we value human life remains static while the value of other species changes as we learn.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why not? Because one scientist says so and gives no evidence? I don't know what he's basing his views on, but it's certainly not eukaryote biology. His views on the tree tend to be touted by him and others as "philosophical", whatever that might mean. To me it seems like he's mostly concerned with how we represent convergence and complex breeding relationships, which has very little to do with the overall nested tree. Which is not at all the metaphor that he suggests.

OK, here's news of other scientists - also evolutionists - also disputing the concept:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

wolfsbane

CDfm said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean Christ and the apostles were ignorant of how mankind started out and were only repeating what they read in the OT? Or do you mean they knew the OT account of Creation, the Flood, the plagues in Egypt, Jonah in the fish, etc. were fables/metaphors?
I am not sure I understand your question.

They said that which was necessary to understand the world and yes some of its allegorical. A central theme of Christs ministry was to simplify things and not over complicate them.

It shouldn't matter how/when Man was created anyway only that we "are".

Christ's references to Biblical history were for the purpose of proving ethical points - for example, the sanctity of marriage ( Adam & Eve); or for giving analogous descriptions of the Last Days ( Noah and the Flood). If these were in fact non-historical, what possible value would they have as examples?
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

How and when we were created matters at least for the reason that it is proclaimed history in the Bible. If that history is in error, then we cannot treat any of the Bible as reliable. It also contradicts the Bible's own assertions about itself, that it is inerrant, the inspired word of God.
John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, here's news of other scientists - also evolutionists - also disputing the concept:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

Thank you, New Scientist! Can you explain what 'concept' are they 'disputing,' exactly, wolfsbane?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, here's news of other scientists - also evolutionists - also disputing the concept:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

I'll let PZ take this one:

PZ Myers wrote:

you should read the inside. It sends a different message.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Thank you, New Scientist! Can you explain what 'concept' are they 'disputing,' exactly, wolfsbane?

I gathered it was the universal tree of life concept. Seemed to suggest an alternative - a tangled bush of some sort, or, to use their word, a web.

But maybe you will enlighten us?

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, here's news of other scientists - also evolutionists - also disputing the concept:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

Oh wolsfbane . It is saying exactly what AH has been discussing with you for the last 5-10 pages or so. Remember HGT? Surely you remember Eukaryote evolution? You were wearing your blue jumper?

Seriously had you actually read the article and not been distracted by just by the catchy title you would have have realised this. :rolleyes:

Which was it by the way, did you read it and not understand the connection to the past weeks discussion, or just plain old not read it at all?

CDfm

marco_polo wrote: »

Oh wolsfbane . It is saying exactly what AH has been discussing with you for the last 5-10 pages or so. Remember HGT? Surely you remember Eukaryote evolution? You were wearing your blue jumper?

Seriously had you actually read the article and not been distracted by just by the catchy title you would have have realised this. :rolleyes:

Which was it by the way, did you read it and not understand the connection to the past weeks discussion, or just plain old not read it at all?

Marco is this Neo - Darwin.

Not being that up on the issue if Darwin was wrong well what makes this theory so right.

How come those who accept the biblical accounts literally as historical narrative are so wrong.Maybe they dont agree with the theories but they are not the only ones.

Equally couldnt these be "building blocks" that all species share having a common creator and that would be a deist view -Anthony Flew the British academic and fpormer prominent atheist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flewis of this view and so too is Paul Davies the academic and physicist who has held lots of academic posts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

These are prominent academics and thinkers and also may have blue jumpers. The theories really are interpretations of data.