The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Now I am no expert but there is a lot of join the dots and hype.

No there isn't.

CDfm wrote: »

For that matter people do bring their prejudices from the Pro and Anti God Camps ( lots of creationists believe there is nothing as camp as an anti-God evolutionist and Im being allegorical) but that does nothing for the arguments for either side.

Unlike religion and theology prejudices are irrelevant in science. The only thing that matters is what you can demonstrate. That is why Creationists hate science so much, they can't demonstrate their theology. So they attack science itself.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Unlike religion and theology prejudices are irrelevant in science. The only thing that matters is what you can demonstrate. That is why Creationists hate science so much, they can't demonstrate their theology. So they attack science itself.

So if I believe in God but am not a Creationist or 7 Day Creationist the science should not affect my beliefs.

The blue jumper can even be optional.

Morbert

CDfm wrote:

As Atomic Horror deftly pointed out the Origan of The Species and the Origan of Life Are not synonomous.

A criticism of evolutionary theory is that it seems to lead one in a particular direction right or wrong the Tree of Life could be utter bollox as it is not conclusive proof. The search for elusive missing links etc.

I am not saying it is but that whether it is or not you have the here and now.Neo Darwinisim which Atomic Horror says(I hope I am not misquoting) is the Modern Synthesis of Darwin and Mendel brought inherited change into the mix.

Genetics is sophisticated and the whole DNA thing leaves me confused. Like evolutionary bilogists tell us this and that yet they cant collect enough dna or frozen mammoth sperm to impregnate an elephant. And Im on the side of the evolutionists but it just is not proven.

Parts are accepted and the logic is there but science is no furher in proving who the ancestors of Chickenasauros kfc are.

Now I am no expert but there is a lot of join the dots and hype.

For that matter people do bring their prejudices from the Pro and Anti God Camps ( lots of creationists believe there is nothing as camp as an anti-God evolutionist and Im being allegorical) but that does nothing for the arguments for either side.

So I agree with you here Wicknight but the whole reject God or you cant accept science does no credit to some posters (present company excepted).

Firstly, the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology is the theory of evolution that explains the facts of evolution. The term "Neo Darwinism" is as unhelpful as "neo gravitationalism" or "neo immunology" despite the best intentions of George Romanes.

Secondly, the evidence for the theory of evolution is very conclusive. There is no "join the dots and hype". There is no "search for the elusive missing link". That might sound like a cliché, but it is true regardless. You only need to consider the multitude of evolutionary biologist journals to see that.

CDfm

Morbert wrote: »

Firstly, the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology is the theory of evolution that explains the facts of evolution. The term "Neo Darwinism" is as unhelpful as "neo gravitationalism" or "neo immunology" despite the best intentions of George Romanes.

I am very suspicious of the neo-factionists.But then there is nothing in Catholic teaching which denies evolution. Neo-Darwinism is a scientific term as with all the other terms.

Secondly, the evidence for the theory of evolution is very conclusive. There is no "join the dots and hype". There is no "search for the elusive missing link". That might sound like a cliché, but it is true regardless. You only need to consider the multitude of evolutionary biologist journals to see that.

How conclusive ? Does anyone other than Creationits disagree.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

A criticism of evolutionary theory is that it seems to lead one in a particular direction right or wrong the Tree of Life could be utter bollox as it is not conclusive proof. The search for elusive missing links etc.

They're not particularly elusive. I mean, fossils are elusive in general, but literally every new fossil we've found has fit the predictions of the theory of evolution.

CDfm wrote: »

Genetics is sophisticated and the whole DNA thing leaves me confused. Like evolutionary bilogists tell us this and that yet they cant collect enough dna or frozen mammoth sperm to impregnate an elephant. And Im on the side of the evolutionists but it just is not proven.

What are you getting at? Proven to whom? Your average organism has on the order of 10,000-100,000 genes all of which would be needed to recreate the organism. And even that would be a stretch given the technical hurdles. What would it "prove" if we could do this?

Do we need that amount of genetic material just to assess relatedness? Granted that there's always a chance that the bits of the genomes we have not been able to sequence will falsify the tree of life, but we can say the same of gaps in the fossil record. Each time we fill a gap, we find the tree intact. We've been filling gaps in the fossil record for 150 years and in the genetic record for a couple of decades. So at what point would you be satisfied to say it is valid?

CDfm wrote: »

Parts are accepted and the logic is there but science is no furher in proving who the ancestors of Chickenasauros kfc are.

Now I am no expert but there is a lot of join the dots and hype.

What are you basing that assumption on? The join the dots argument is pretty weak. There's not much wriggle room in the tree of life. The only way to change its topology is to deliberately ignore traits. The tree is completely contrary to what would be expected if eukaryotic life were designed.

CDfm wrote: »

How conclusive ? Does anyone other than Creationits disagree.

The consensus on evolution by natural selection within the scientific community is something above 99.999% as far as I know. The only biologists I've yet heard dispute its validity were also religious fundamentalists.

Morbert

CDfm wrote: »

I am very suspicious of the neo-factionists.But then there is nothing in Catholic teaching which denies evolution. Neo-Darwinism is a scientific term as with all the other terms.

Neo-Darwinism is not a scientific term. It is label as unhelpful as neo-physicist, or neo-abiogeneticist. It means nothing in our social context.

How conclusive ? Does anyone other than Creationits disagree.

This has been answered by AtomicHorror just now so I'll leave it at that.

CDfm

Morbert wrote: »

Neo-Darwinism is not a scientific term. It is label as unhelpful as neo-physicist, or neo-abiogeneticist. It means nothing in our social context.

If the blue jumper fits wear it -you didnt know what it meant in a previous exchange but now you are against its use.

How dawkinesque.

You dont explain how as a God believer I need to disbelieve the science.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

They're not particularly elusive. I mean, fossils are elusive in general, but literally every new fossil we've found has fit the predictions of the theory of evolution.

I accept what you say and have never argued with that.

What are you getting at? Proven to whom? Your average organism has on the order of 10,000-100,000 genes all of which would be needed to recreate the organism. And even that would be a stretch given the technical hurdles. What would it "prove" if we could do this?

That would be the ultimate test.

Do we need that amount of genetic material just to assess relatedness? Granted that there's always a chance that the bits of the genomes we have not been able to sequence will falsify the tree of life, but we can say the same of gaps in the fossil record. Each time we fill a gap, we find the tree intact. We've been filling gaps in the fossil record for 150 years and in the genetic record for a couple of decades. So at what point would you be satisfied to say it is valid?

What are you basing that assumption on? The join the dots argument is pretty weak. There's not much wriggle room in the tree of life. The only way to change its topology is to deliberately ignore traits. The tree is completely contrary to what would be expected if eukaryotic life were designed.

Its as predicted. How would one expect it to be different if designed - I dont understand that part of your argument.

I am only going by what I see on discovery channell.

The consensus on evolution by natural selection within the scientific community is something above 99.999% as far as I know. The only biologists I've yet heard dispute it's validity were also religious fundamentalists.

Seeing I dont disagree with evolution its an academic point. I would expect that fossils etc would fit the model as it is an adaptive model.

Morbert

CDfm wrote: »

If the blue jumper fits wear it -you didnt know what it meant in a previous exchange but now you are against its use.

How dawkinesque.

This accusation is meaningless. I have told you why I am against its use. Do you have a response related to why I am against its use?

CDfm

Morbert wrote: »

This accusation is meaningless. I have told you why I am against its use.

You dont explain how as a God believer I need to disbelieve the science.

Do you have a response related to why I am against its use?

Cos Atomic Horror posted about it.

But the same question to you. If its as predicted. How would one expect it to be different if designed - I dont understand that part of the argument.

Morbert

You shadow-edited to include this line in your post after I had already responded. It would be better to post a new message in future.

You dont explain how as a God believer I need to disbelieve the science.

So? I'm saying Neo-Darwinism is a misleading term, and that the science of evolution is sound. What does that have to do with God and disbelief?

CDfm

Morbert wrote: »

You shadow-edited to include this line in your post after I had already responded. It would be better to post a new message in future.

Sorry connection problems

So? I'm saying Neo-Darwinism is a misleading term, and that the science of evolution is sound. What does that have to do with God and disbelief?

I am not a scientist and didnt make up the term neo-darwinist but it works for me.:pac:

Is your belief that Christians cant accept science or do you concede that its just fundamentalists that question evolution.

Morbert

But the same question to you. If its as predicted. How would one expect it to be different if designed - I dont understand that part of the argument.

God, assuming he exists, would be capable of desining life as he wished. The idea of intelligent design accomodates any configuration of the tree of life. But what it doesn't do is explain why the tree of life is the way it is. If I asked you why God designed life with the constraint of making features appear inherited, you would presumably say something along the lines of "because he can do what he likes". Evolution, on the other hand, explains exactly why we find the tree of life as it is (modification through mutation, and preservation through natural selection and inheritance). It is the dependence on the evidence that makes evolution so compelling.

Is your belief that Christians cant accept science or do you concede that its just fundamentalists that question evolution.

"Conceding" that point implies I said otherwise in the past. Nobody (not even Dawkins) says Christians can't accept science.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

That would be the ultimate test.

If the skeleton of the animal exactly matched our fossils I suppose it would demonstrate to us that we'd correctly sequenced all of the genes that contribute to the skeleton. But we could just as easily compare multiple samples (from within the same remains as well as between multiple independent mammoths or Neanderthals or whatever) to assess error across the entire genome. Which I assume is standard practice during sequencing.

CDfm wrote: »

Its as predicted. How would one expect it to be different if designed - I dont understand that part of your argument.

Designed things don't conform to a tree distribution when we arrange them by their traits unless you ignore any design influences from unrelated lineages. So objects like a solar powered car break any attempt to build a tree of relatedness for cars because the solar car is derived from both the car and the solar panel. We only see a bifurcating tree distribution in designed objects when the new features appearing in successive versions of an object are only derived from modifications of features in the previous iteration or are re-invented from scratch. In other words, a tree structure suggests stagnant, blinkered and stupid design at best.

CDfm wrote: »

I am only going by what I see on discovery channell.

Hardly surprising that you see evolution as containing hype and dot-joining in that case!

CDfm

Morbert wrote: »

God, assuming he exists, would be capable of desining life as he wished. The idea of intelligent design accomodates any configuration of the tree of life. But what it doesn't do is explain why the tree of life is the way it is. If I asked you why God designed life with the constraint of making features appear inherited........ It is the dependence on the evidence that makes evolution so compelling

It is what it is and I have never argued or rationalised about Intelligent Design and I dont question the science.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In other words, a tree structure suggests stagnant, blinkered and stupid design at best.

Woohoo and according to Genisis we are made in His image.

Hardly surprising that you see evolution as containing hype and dot-joining in that case!

I think Ive hit on something here.

Is calling someone a neo-darwinist really bad. Is it the scientist equivalent of Creationist???

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Woohoo and according to Genisis we are made in His image.

Well I don't know. The evolution of the Gillette razors sure seem to follow the moronic design pattern!

CDfm wrote: »

I think Ive hit on something here.

Is calling someone a neo-darwinist really bad. Is it the scientist equivalent of Creationist???

It's a term typically used only by Creationists, rather like "evolutionist". It implies dogmatism. Neo-Darwinist is a term that hasn't had a non-perjorative meaning in quite some time. In its original usage I think it dates from the earliest fusion of Mendel and Darwin's work. That movement was ignorant of genetic drift and molecular genetics, so we've since moved on.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's a term typically used only by Creationists, rather like "evolutionist". It implies dogmatism. Neo-Darwinist is a term that hasn't had a non-perjorative meaning in quite some time. In its original usage I think it dates from the earliest fusion of Mendel and Darwin's work. That movement was ignorant of genetic drift and molecula
"evolutionist"@ genetics, so we've since moved on.

What about scientism ? Thats gotta hurt.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

So if I believe in God but am not a Creationist or 7 Day Creationist the science should not affect my beliefs.

The blue jumper can even be optional.

can you demonstrate God exists or that he created life on Earth?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

can you demonstrate God exists or that he created life on Earth?

Scientism will raise its ugly head.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Scientism will raise its ugly head.

thats a no then?

How much this effects you is up to you. You might not care at all. Or it might cause you to seriously doubt your religious position and to question how you came about it in the first place

All of that is up to you.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

thats a no then?

How much this effects you is up to you. You might not care at all. Or it might cause you to seriously doubt your religious position and to question how you came about it in the first place

All of that is up to you.

That would be an ecunimical matter

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

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,

You made a similar point before and I found it provocative. I disagree completely with your stance here. I happen to believe in evolution, but it makes little difference to my faith, which is something that exists in the present time. Anyway, your stance here is worrying, because if it were true it would lead to an intellectual rejection of God, or at least a faith which was rationally vulnerable to results from science.

As for the major point, about how and when we were created mattering, and the literacy of the biblical explanation mattering, how do you address the fairly simple paradox that God created the universe in six days, yet the concept of a day (a revolution of our planet) was not well defined at the start? Surely that indicates that the creation story is metaphoric?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

That would be an ecunimical matter

toiletduck

Hey what do the creationists here make of the big bang model of the universe? Do ye deny red-shift and cosmic inflation or have some other model that attempts to reconcile these with a 4000 year old universe?

The Mad Hatter

toiletduck wrote: »

Hey what do the creationists here make of the big bang model of the universe? Do ye deny red-shift and cosmic inflation or have some other model that attempts to reconcile these with a 4000 year old universe?

Yes, they do. Their model is The Bible Said It.

Zombrex

toiletduck wrote: »

Hey what do the creationists here make of the big bang model of the universe? Do ye deny red-shift and cosmic inflation or have some other model that attempts to reconcile these with a 4000 year old universe?

The Creationist model is basically take what fits from science and throw out anything that doesn't on the basis that it is obviously flawed and wrong. The fun bit comes when they embrace something that cannot work without the bits they throw away. But then most Creationists don't seem to under the science they are commenting on, which leads to bizarre situations where you get say an Creationist vet commenting on astrophysics and vice-versa.

CDfm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, they do. Their model is The Bible Said It.

I can never understand that. If you believe -then you should believe in the context of the world that you live in etc.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I can never understand that. If you believe -then you should believe in the context of the world that you live in etc.

Many Christians (indeed people in general) will deny their own observations in favour of some authority, be it written or otherwise. Generally for Christians this seems to just relate to more nebulous things like morality. Homosexual relationships are a sin, for example. Identification of harmful consequence is rather tricky with that one. Many Christians who feel conflicted on that point will happily say "it's in the Bible" and then they feel better. They're not homophobic at all, but somehow they've outsourced their thinking process on the matter. It's a rather stunning display of how humans deal with cognitive dissonance.

One of the major players in the process is confirmation bias. In this case, evidence of sexually aggressive and promiscuous homosexuals is given great weight whilst evidence of passive and faithful homosexuals is given lesser weight, and is ignored or forgotten.

So is it really that huge a leap to deny contradictory scientific evidence? Science can be complicated sometimes, and it's very easy to differ to authority when a thing is difficult to understand. Ironically, it is this very style of thinking that science was created to circumvent.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

but somehow they've outsourced their thinking process on the matter.

That is a good way of putting. It is taking comfort from the idea that someone else has decided something for you. The problem is for that to have any meaning you have to listen to what they say about everything. So, as you say, plenty of Christians who would have no objection to homosexuality at all end up objecting to it because it comes from the authority they defer to when making moral decisions.