Marcus responded to my previous post! Since I asked some questions of him in it, I really shouldn’t be surprised. But, anyway, here’s his response… to my response… to his response: Take Red Pill, Naon Tiotami, Not Blue Pill.
And, of course, here’s my response… to his current response.
Once again, my comments are blue, his comments are red.
I have no problem with your explanation as to why we have no transitional records indicating direct descent from fish to amphibians. It’s plausible. It’s logical. You only omit one possibility: There aren’t any to find.
That, of course, is a possibility, but… it contradicts the genetic evidence that strongly points towards the inter-relatedness of all living things. The only mechanism we know of that can produce similar genetic sequences is heredity, and, no, a common designer is not an explanation, because it cannot be falsified. Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.
Oh, and one small correction (for myself): Tiktaalik was actually found (and therefore lived) in an ancient river, not an ancient shallow sea. My bad.It’s weird that my arguments are ridiculed and maligned. Yet you say “Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.” Think about that for a minute. It’s not scientifically verifiable that living fish and amphibians have a common ancestor because none has been found. Just possible fossils that suggest that we may one day find them. So why not reject it. Besides some thing are true because they are true whether of not they are scientifically verifiable. For example if a child’s mother dies when the child is to young to remember her, can the child scientifically verify that his/her mother loved them? No. But we would still tell that child that the mother they have never seen loves them.
There’s a difference between being possible to verify and being actually verified. I would say that the common ancestry of fish and amphibians is both of those, because the claim itself can be tested and falsified, but the evidence points towards it being true. The explanation of a common designer is impossible to verify (because it fits all theoretical evidence), and, because it is something you would base an entire worldview off (and therefore reject many parts of scientific inquiry), you cannot use it to explain anything. It’s like a solipsistic argument: you plug gaps in understanding (or even replace things that we do understand) with an entity that is by definition impossible to know anything about empirically (and that truly means you can’t know anything about it at all).
Plus, scientific verification is never 100%, and you should know this. You can always doubt a hypothesis or theory even when the evidence is extremely compelling, because there could always be another explanation. The same applies to evolution, and, more specifically, fish-amphibian common ancestry. But, at some point you have to weigh the evidence and see what is most likely. Genetic evidence is basically enough to confirm the fish-amphibian hypothesis (as we will refer to it here, but it has actually become part of the overall evolutionary theory and is not a hypothesis anymore), but fossil evidence gives us another, independent, line of evidence that points towards the common ancestor of fish and amphibians living somewhere in northern Canada 375 million years ago. We don’t need a fossil of a member of that one population that gave rise to both the modern fish and modern amphibian lineages, because we have fossil evidence that it did exist, as predicted by the theory of evolution. Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil, because it proves that organisms with features of both fish and amphibians once did exist, and exactly the place where more recent fossils predict, as well as genetic evidence and modern anatomical analysis.
Also, while it would not be 100%, you could scientifically investigate whether or not a child’s dead mother loved them. Because most mothers love their children, as verified by common experience and human instinct, we would therefore place that as the null hypothesis and look for evidence that the mother did not love the child (ie. criminal charges on the mother for abusing the child, conversations where the mother expressed her disdain for her tiny child etc.), and therefore throw out this default assumption. If none could be found, then the child could reasonably say that the mother loved them.
But this is all because we know mothers love their children. We don’t know that God exists. We don’t know that supernatural creative forces exist that transcend time and space. Therefore, we can’t really investigate if the Universe (and all life etc.) was “created” by such a force/deity.
I don’t see any “goal post” moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people.
Mmm, but you wanted a transition, you got one, then asked for a full, unbroken sequence. You moved the goalpost.
I asked for a transitional fossil proving that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Not for transitional fossils showing common links for today’s fish and amphibians. Look at the context in which I wrote that post reviewing Nephilim Rising. I didn’t move any goal post. David expanded the playing field.
This is kind of a moot point, and doesn’t really prove anything, so I’m just going to leave it. Think what you will.
Why abandon this point? I was taken out of context. Bottom line. And the only way to prove evolution is to produce an unbroken sequence. Evolutionist pretend that they have that but they don’t
No, you do not need an unbroken sequence to “prove” evolution. In fact, you can’t “prove” anything in science, you can only see what is most likely to be true given the evidence at hand. You can also make predictions about what things you could observe if the scientific claim was true, and this adds more weight to the claim.
There is a point, however, when you look at all the evidence and think, “Is it really reasonable to say that it is not true?” If you come to the conclusion that it’s not, and so do a vast majority of your collegues and peers (assuming you are a scientist), then you have demonstrated something scientifically. It’s still tentative, but it is accepted as basically true at that time.
Anyway, back to the unbroken sequence of fossils. We don’t need that to verify fish-amphibian common ancestry because we have so much other evidence that points towards it that we don’t need it. Of course, it would be great if we did have it, because it would reveal a lot about how evolution works in great detail and we would learn a lot about both fish and amphibians. But we don’t need it.
I’m going to state this again, just so I’m completely sure you understand: we are not looking for a sequence of fossils that show modern fish going to modern amphibians. We are looking for a sequence that goes from a fish-amphibian ancestor (which would have some of the features of each) to both of the modern lineages, kind of like a “V” shape, with the common ancestor at the bottom and the modern organisms on each tip.
“Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: “In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1″
Well, I wouldn’t read the Bible for that. It’s incompatible with modern scientific findings (if read literally).
I’m not sure what by definition: do you mean “explanation”? If so, I don’t have one at the moment, no one does.The Bible has a explanation. It does not give details as to how He did it. That is what scientific inquiry is for. God allows you to accept or reject this explanation. But nothing else makes sense. Something came out of nothing. Physics agrees with this. Some how Entropy became less than 0. Order came out of nothing. Direction-less, random processes does nothing to explain the origins of reality let alone life. The Bible does not answer all questions and not all of it is to be read literally. There is debate as to what it means to say that earth was created in 6 days. Was each 24 hours as we measure them today? Or was it many eons? We don’t know. The Hebrew does not specify. What we do know is that God can do anything. If he wanted to do it in 6 24-hour days, I see no reason why not.
So, you’re saying that the explanation is true by default (that the Bible is true in the way it describes things), and it’s science’s job to find out how? Firstly, how could science find out how? It was a supernatural event, and therefore you could say warp absolutely any data by just saying that God changed the laws of nature at that point. Not an explanation, I’m sorry. Again, unfalsifiable, not worth bothering about.
Not everything God does changes the laws of nature. He often works inside those laws.. You’re immediately going into the nature of “miracles” and I wasn’t going there. For example the Bible tells us when the first rainbow appeared. Now we can explain how rainbows are formed. There are a lot of other examples. I’m planning to do a blog series soon presenting what I have been studying concerning this.
But you were talking about the origin of the Universe, not rainbows. You said that science could give details about how God made the Universe. I would love to hear a way it could possibly do that.
Secondly, who says something came out of nothing? Not the scientific evidence. The Bible does, but we can reject that from the conversation because you would believe what it says regardless of what I say. “Physics agrees with this.” Show me, show me how it does.
You seem more well-versed in biology than physics. Therefore, I’d direct you to any Physics journal in print today. Ask yourself: What was there before the big bang? Right, nothing. Just like the Bible says. How can something come out of nothing. Scientifically if you take sub-atomic particles accelerate them to close to the speed of light, then collide them together you can get other particles springing out of nothing…for may be a pico second. You get particles with its corresponding anti-particle and they cancel themselves out anililating each other; mustn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics right? Yes, Virginia, there is such thing as anti-matter.
What was before the Big Bang? We don’t know. We can only look back a certain way with teloscopes, and even though we get really, really close with mathematical models, the math breaks down at the Planck time (approx. 5 x 10-44 seconds) after the Big Bang. However, the thing is: time started at the Big Bang. This means it is utterly meaningless to even think about what was “before” the Big Bang, because such a question doesn’t make sense. It is like, as most people give the analogy as, asking “What is north of the North Pole?” Such a region doesn’t exist.
All we know is that the current Universe began with a singularity. That’s it. We don’t know where that came from, it just existed. We’re not at that level in physics to understand much more than that.
I think what you might have been talking about with the particles and anti-matter is virtual particles: virtual particle pairs spring out of existence, borrowing energy from the vacuum (or other things, like the gravitational field of a black hole), then repay it by annihilating each other (not, in the case of Hawking radiation). This isn’t really creation out of nothing, because the vacuum exists and gives its energy for this to happen.
But you weren’t talking about that, were you, because there were high-energy particle collisions were involved. That’s called energy-to-matter conversion, as stated in E=mc2. The particles don’t come out of nothing, they are created from the energy of the collision: the kinetic energy of the particles is converted to all manner of weird and short-lived things. So, that doesn’t have any relevance to anything we were talking about.
I think you might be confusing your physics there.
Thirdly, what are your reasons for rejecting the, understandably, incomplete hypothesises about abiogenesis? The Bible? Sorry, not good enough. Do you have any scientific reasons? Are any of them not found on this page?
My short answer is that abiogenesis is an “understandably, incomplete hypothesis” as to why I dismiss it. Why would you accept it other than the fact that it eases your conscious in rejecting your creator?
That’s not a reason! You can’t dismiss a scientific field because its not complete! If you could, then you would rejecting every field of science, because nothing is complete in science. I said it was “understandably” incomplete because the field of abiogenesis research has only existed for about 50 years. Would you expect it to have all the answers by now? And please don’t say no because you believe answers will never be found. That’s not logical.
I don’t accept abiogenesis because I have some repressed knowledge that the Universe was really created by the God of the Bible (even though you think I do, no matter what I say), I accept it because it is a scientific endeavor, and the other alternatives don’t make logical sense. Why do you accept the science you do accept, like chemistry? It’s because of the same reason, I’m guessing.
Fourthly, why are some parts of the Bible not to be read literally? How do you know this? Does the Bible say so? Or are you just cherry-picking to make sure it complies with what science you do accept?
The Bible, like a lot of literature is not meant to be taken literally because it uses hyperbole, metaphor, and allegory to make points. In context and a good study of history and culture set in the time it was written it becomes easy to tell what to take literally and what not to take literally. And yes, sometimes the Bible itself says when it’s being poetic or literal!
Mmm, okay. So, give me your reasons why the general gist of Genesis should be taken literally, but not some of the details. I’d love to hear them and see if they’re all good as you say.
Fifthly, why would God create the Universe is 6 days? Couldn’t he do it in zero seconds if he wanted to? (This point is not a main one, so don’t devote millions of words going off on a tangent. I’m just curious as to what you think.)
The Bible says it was 6 days. I don’t know why he chose to do it that way. The Hebrew at that point is not even clear on how long a day was. The word translated “day” literally means a period of time. He could have done it in zero seconds, 6 seconds, or 6 billion years. The Bible does not say. God can do anything He wants.
Yes, He can. Therefore, any evidence can conform to that. Thus, anything He does is unverifiable. This relates to what I was saying before about explanations.
First of all, “Evolution News and Views” is run by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design thinktank that, for all intents and purposes, is a creationist organisation.
“Intelligent Design” does not equal “creationism”. Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. I think they’re nuts…but at least they have enough sense to know that you don’t get anything complex by chance. If you do, then I have some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell to you.
See, you define “creationism” as your brand of Biblical literalism, but most definitions will define it as any explanation of “creation” (being life, the Universe etc., but not necessarily more than one or all of them) involving a supernatural entity. The Discovery Institute is basically a creationist organisation, are heavily biased against evolution (as opposed to being “balanced”, like they would claim), and have stated this right here. (Note: The link is to a copy of a document that was written for the Discovery Institute, and is not hosted on the DI’s website)
You are making my point: you have to define terms. I do not know how the Discovery Institute defines creationism. So talking about them is pointless. I know how I define it. I see no reason to try to defend them. I pointed them out as only a source to show that not everyone agrees that this particular fossil is a good evidence for macro evolution! That is what you need to be answering to not whether or not they Believe God created the universe to some degree or another. Either Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil or it isn’t. Prove it is. Or else admit that you do so by faith.
Okay, so you don’t like the Disco’Tute. Fair enough. Let’s move on.
Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil between fish and amphibians because it has features of both fish and amphibians (which have been anatomically analysed, not just looked at for a few seconds like you would think, Marcus), and was found in the place predicted by the theory of evolution at the right time in history. That is evidence that it is. It is not 100% proof, but, as I said before, we don’t need 100%.
If you don’t like that evidence, tell me why not. State why, then we can talk properly about it. Just flatout say it.
I know what you’re thinking because you already made the point that evolution is driven by many factors. None of these factors are in a vacuum or can be thought not to interact with each other. Let’s say, that the Judeo-Christian God is not responsible as some folks say. Even so don’t you think anyone able to design life on earth would also be able to manipulate all those factors too!
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Sorry. Could you please restate this?
I’m making the point that I realize that you do not believe that evolution is a radom process with things happening all on their own but that evolution is driven by many factors including environment, food sources, and too many factors to keep in mind, let alone predict how they affect one another. To me this show that there must be a God. How else can you explain how all the factors lined up to bring about life in all its myraid forms as we see today?
Just because we cannot predict how each factor affected each other factor during the history of the development of life on Earth, it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
I think you’re invoking the “probability” argument. Let me answer it with an analogy to a deck of cards (like lots of people do):
You have a deck of 52 playing cards, and you throw them in the air. Some land face up, some land face down, and it is impossible to predict how the cards will look on the ground. Now, the pattern of up and down facing cards that they land in is extremely improbable, because the number of combinations that the cards could have landed in is truely huge. But it landed that way. Why?
Well, the thing is, one of those combinations had to happen. You’re just looking at the event after the fact and seeing that one combination occurred. But one of them had to occur by necessity. It’s the same with evolution: something had to happen, no matter the outcome.
Look at it this way: each card is a factor in evolution. Shuffle and deal the cards. You get a combination that leads to an evolutionary outcome. That specific outcome was unlikely by itself, but an outcome was not unlikely. What you’re doing, Marcus, is saying that this specific evolutionary outcome is too improbable to occur by chance. But that’s simply the wrong way to look at it. An outcome had to occur. This just happened to be it.
Secondly, to debunk the claims found in those articles, I would have to spend time looking up stuff. I don’t want to do that now, but I may do that in the near future. Look out on http://naontiotami.com to see if I ever do get around to it (I have to write an essay for the Discovery Institute Academic Freedom Day contest, so it might be after that).
I look forward to seeing you try to explain the holes these scientist who disagree with the theory of evolution easily points out.
In time, in time. I promise, there will be explanations.
Bring it!
I don’t think I really need to respond to this, do I?
I’d suggest continuing this “debate” in the comments of this post, since I use IntenseDebate, and it makes it so much quicker.
Anyone who wants to seriously take part in this discussion probably needs to get an IntenseDebate account, so I don’t have to continuously moderate your comments. You can get one here.
Marcus really likes having it both ways (ooh, that sounds a bit dirty) he wants us to take some parts of the bible literally but not others.
But which ones Marcus, and who gets to decide?
What Marcus has to realise is that the bible was put together by a bunch of, mostly undereducated, people over a very long time. Naturally, like many works of fiction, there are some elements of fact; this doesn't make the whole book factual or reliable. Therefore, only the facts that can be verified, and there are very few of them, should be taken into account. And I'll give you a hint Marcus, you won't find many, if any, verifiable facts in Genesis.
Naon, I like your example of the deck of cards, simple but effective. But will Marcus and his ilk get it?
Before continuing the evolution debate I recommend downloading and reading this file. Hopefully it will make some things clearer for the creationists and provide some useful facts for the 'evolutionists'.
I downloaded the PDF, but it appears to be corrupt (or something). At least that's what my Mac said. Any other copies on the Internet?
No idea why the pdf file didn't work? I just re-downloaded it OK.
I originally downloaded it from here http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876but somehow didn't pay for it?
That's weird: I downloaded it again and it's fine to open.
Anyway, I'll read it soon, thanks for the link. However… I'm a little busy with this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
1.If you have not found fossil remains of a common ancestry of fish and amphibians, how can you say that it’s verified? I thought you were arguing that it was possible to verify that and that there is evidence that point to it…or suggests it so that you can infer that fish and amphibians have a common ancestor. That’s not verification.
2.I do not reject any part of scientific inquiry. Just like you infer that fish and amphibians have a common ancestry, without verification, from the existence of “fishapods”, why can’t you look at the design and structure of all that you can observe and not infer that someone did it. I know you think I’m intelligent, but you don’t think that this response appeared on its own by random chance, do you?
3.Can you present genetic evidence conclusively that fish and amphibians have a common ancestor? Without genetic material from that ancestor I don’t think so.
4.Using the dead mother analogy: wouldn’t it help if the child could read a letter or a journal from the deam mother expressing her wishes and love? I’m sure it would go a long way in proving love. That is what the Bible is – messages from the creator. How else can you explain over 40 human authors from different cultures, backgrounds, and locations (God used them to write it), written over a span of 1500 years, from 3 continents, and in 3 different languages, yet saying the same message? A supernatural creative force, transcending space-time answers that question as well as human consciousness.
5.Excuse me, but you can prove things in science. I’ve measureed the speed of light in air. I’ve measured gravity. I’ve recreated many of the most famous experiments in physics and chemistry and I can tell you that those laws and equations are true. As for evolution, we don’t have the same litmus tests as we do in thermodynamics or newtonian phyiscs. It’s totally reasonable to reject macro evolution on the lack of concrete evidence and eliminating inferences if you apply the same level. Macro evolution cannot be made to “walk on all fours”.
6.You are saying that you don’t need an unbroken sequence of fossils to trust that macro evolution is true. I don’t understand why you are willing to deny God yet accept something that you really don’t have any greater proof is true.
7.Rainbows are part of the universe. I used rainbows as an example of something God expressly created for a purpose but didn not tell us how it worked but now, through science we know how it works. This is an example. When I say “how God made the universe” I am referring to how it functions. Maybe one day how it came into being. But this brings up another issue that hasn’t been addressed: purpose. I’m not just interested in how the universe came into existence and how it works, I want to know why. Some folks have tried to dodge this question by asking “why does anything need a purpose?” as if suggesting that the universe doesn’t need a purpose. But I can’t think off anything that doesn’t have a purpose. No one makes anything without a purpose of making it. What is your purpose?
8.Asking what existed before the Big Bang is not meaningless. You should have just left it as “We don’t know”. Instead you tried to get all philosophical to say we should not ask that question. Who now is trying to reject a scientific inquiry to protect a religion? Not I. Not ever.
9.In physics, a vaccum is empty. Nothing. Void. Where does the energy come from? I’m not confused at all. I thought you did an almost good job discussing energy-to-matter conversions which we can observe in laboratories and virtual particles pairs. I think you explained it better than I (it’s been 10 years since I’ve studied the material) all except the comment about vacuum. However, physicist now infer that these phenomonon shows that the universe came out of nothing.
Nothing has a purpose. Purpose is subjective. We give things purpose. How does a rock, star, water, oxygen etc have a purpose? Do you think before you type this stuff out? Ridiculous.
"Can you present genetic evidence conclusively that fish and amphibians have a common ancestor?"
Yes. Have you heard of DNA?
"6.You are saying that you don’t need an unbroken sequence of fossils to trust that macro evolution is true. I don’t understand why you are willing to deny God yet accept something that you really don’t have any greater proof is true."
Evolution is a scientific fact. Supported by a wealth of fossil and DNA evidence. G-D has no evidence, except a musty old tome that is so studded and tattooed with human finger prints it could hardly be the work of a god (or as you seem to think, humans under the magical power of a god all writing a completely historically inaccurate book).
"but you don’t think that this response appeared on its own by random chance, do you? "
I hate you so much. Who said evolution is random chance? this is the same old tired shit.
The cold hard fact is that you are a creationist. Someone who ignores evidence so that he can feel good he is going to heaven when he dies. You are dishonest with yourself and you are being dishonest with us.
Hey, watch your language young man.
Do you think?
Rocks have a purpose: if there were no rocks, what would you stand on? Oxygen has a purpose; if not for oxygen what would you breathe? We could go on and on. I don't know what the purpose of everything is…but we are learning. Also DNA does not explain or prove evolution. What are you trying to say. Complete thoughts please. It would help.
6. In order for you comment at this point to make any coherent sense you would have to find an historical inaccuracy in the Bible. If you can find just one then your points have merit. Nope? Didn't think so.
You hate me? LOL That is so funny. i know. It doesn't matter if you hate me or not. Jesus loves you and paid the price for your sins on the cross and rose again on the first day. I'm not being dishonest at all. Show me where I have lied or said anything that I can't back up? I know that a lot of evolutionists say claim that evolution is not random, yet appeal to a deck of playing cards being dealt to show that evolution is logical and improbable. Make up your minds. You need to get with NaonTiotami and come up with a consensus. It doesn't matter if you hate me because Jesus loves you and so do I.
7. Rocks only have a "purpose" relative to what we use them for, just like a car only has a "purpose" relative to what we think it is.
I could use this pen right near me now to stab myself, but does that make it the pen's "purpose" to stab me? No, it's just my current use for it. Ow.
In your example, the pen is being misused. The designer of the pen and and manufacturer of the pen never intended for you to use it to stab yourself. If you misuse the pen, then you deserve the consequences. It is the same as anything that exists. Misuse means utilizing something in a way it was not intended to be be used. You know how something should be used by asking the one who made it. If you don't know what your purpose is, ask the one who made you. Wait….you don't think any one created life….so who do you go to figure out what your purpose is? You had nothing to do with your own existence, so what gives you the right to define your own purpose.
Zzzz. Your definition of purpose is subjective. Next topic.
6. jesus being resurrected. Genesis. ETC. Can't be bothered going on with such an inane subject.
You do not seem to have a proper grasp on reality and how things work. You view the world in scientific matters from a humans eye. Science is about objectivity.
1. It's not not 100% verification, but it EVIDENCE that a common ancestor existed at the place that phylogenetic and biogeographical evidence ALSO points to.
Be don't need 100% proof, we just need new data to conform to the theory and predictions that the theory makes to be verified.
Evolution predicted that we would find a fossil like Tiktaalik in the area in which we discovered it. That is EVIDENCE that the theory could be right. Added to all the other evidence, it makes evolution look pretty darn true.
2. I don't have to "infer" that someone created everything I see, because I would like to have evidence that that "someone" actually exists before I throw away all the highly-evidenced natural explanations I already have.
By the way, evolution is not a random process. Please read this article response I did on that exact point here: http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=330
4. Mmm, there's a slight difference between a letter from a mother and an ancient collection of texts that has been translated numerous times from various languages, and not even supposedly written by the person who wants to tell you they love you.
I'd prefer a handwritten letter from God than the Bible, thank you very much.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with evolution, this is an evolution blog, and I am not a Biblical scholar. Slightly off topic. -Ish.
It's not off topic. You guys started attacking the veracity of the Bible. I didn't bring up creationism. Ya'll did. If you are not a Bible scholar then how do you know the Bible has no message for you personally? How do you know you won't get anything out of it?
Do you need to become an expert in the Quran before you can tell someone it's rubbish? do you need to become an expert in leprachauns, fairies, unicorns, gremlins, and ghouls before you can say they are fictional character? No.
Theology is just as valid as palm reading, taro cards, astrology, auras, reading chicken guts, crystal healing, or homeopathy.
5. There is always some room for error in science, no matter how much you think you have "proven" something. I would agree with you though that those constants and laws that you have tested are most likely true, as they are constantly being tested in everyday experience and life.
Unfortunately for you, the same applies for evolution, even though you don't know it. The same large body of evidence exists.
Evolution is a theory. Entropy is law. No comparison.
Entropy does not prevent evolution from happening. If you think it does, explain how.
I never said it did. I was saying that Entropy is an example of a law not a theory like evolution
Oh, okay. Sorry, I'm just so used to that argument being made.
Laws are different to theories in science. A scientific law is a statement of fact meant to explain an action or set of actions. An example would be, as you say, the laws of thermodynamics.
Theories in science are explanations of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by independent groups of researchers. Examples of theories include evolutionary theory (which you know), germ theory (explaining disease as caused by bacteria etc.), the General Theory of Relativity (which you should know about), etc.
Theories, therefore, explain more than laws do, because they encompass multiple phenomena.
Evolution is also a fact – we have seen it happen.
6. Yes, we don't need an unbroken series.
I disbelieve in God for various reasons, but that has nothing to do with accepting evolutionary theory (which is a scientific field). I'm not going to go into why I don't believe in God here, because it is nothing to do with what we're talking about. You think evolution is wrong for bad reasons, I'm calling you out on those reasons. No personal beliefs need enter into it.
Ok, let's leave the Bible at the door for a minute. I've already stated that I reject Tiktallik as evidence of a common ancestor of modern fish and amphibians because I don't think the evidence points in that direction. I have not seen any information from anyone here disputing the counter arguments for that…just hatred towards the things of God. I'm going to respond to your comments from 3 here too. Phylogenetic analysis is true for living creatures and can not be applied to finding common ancestors. It only shows that genetics structures are similar. Big surprise. All life is sharing the same planet. It doesn't prove that lifeforms evolved into other life forms. I know…I know…you are making an inference. Here is another inferenece: All Australians are thieves because Australia started out as British penal colony. Or All Black Americans are gangsters and been in prison based on the American televised newscast. Both are not true. Absolutely untrue. That is how you have used inference to accept evolution.
8. It is meaningless! Time did not exist! "Before" is a word that relates to preceding something, and if time itself did not exist, then "before" cannot mean anything. I am not being philosophical, I'm being honest.
I know it's a hard concept to get your head around, but it is true. The physics says that time started "at" the Big Bang. Rejecting it because you don't understand it is an argument from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy.
It's not meaningless to ask "What existed before time and space?" To say you can't ask that question begs the question. If time has no beginning then it has always existed. If you are going to be honest, then you are going to have make that assertion. So what say you? Has time always existed?
I would argue that you do not understand what you are saying.
You're using words that don't apply to the situation and you're not realising that. If you don't understand that you cannot go "before" something when time didn't exist, then I can't help you with that.
then what word would you use to describe the concept of what existed before time existed? What words in English would you use to describe that state? I'm fine with using that terminology you choose but I refuse to ignore that state as I assume you are saying we should because you don't know how to articulate it.
9. In physics, a vacuum is not "nothing". A vacuum is simply space devoid of matter. Vacuum energy does exist, and a practical, verified example of such energy is the Casimir effect, which you might know about. As always, Wikipedia shall be your salvation from ignorance of this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
I think I know what you might be talking about though. Are you referring to the "quantum fluctuation" cause of the Big Bang, perchance?
Let's agree on terms. We are talking past one another. "Nothing" means devoid of matter, agreed? Now, here is something you might want to consider: I've read about and studied the Casimir Effect and quantum fluctuations in my Physics classes. These are things that we can observe now. Were these things around before the Big Bang happened. Time wasn't. And you can't have fluctuations without time. If you will be a little indulgent, you would have to agree that as far as you know before the "Big Bang" there was not Vacuum energy either. The point is that before the Big Bang as near as anyone, from your world view, can fathom, infer, or imagine, there was nothing….non-existence. Nothing to ignite and no one to ignite something if there was something to ignite. That is why I reject your world view as being illogical and untenable.
So you don't understand the complex physics that goes into early Universe cosmology, so you reject it because it doesn't make sense? I'm sorry, why would you do that? You're not a cosmologist, you're an engineer. You don't need to understand it.
But if you want to learn about it, then take some physics degrees, become a Ph.D in cosmology and then we'll talk.
And don't respond by saying that I would need such qualifications as well: I don't, because YOU'RE the one attacking the scientific consensus here, not me.
No one fully understands early universe cosmology completely. there is no consensus. Jay Richards has a PH.D. in the field and he would not agree with your conclusions any more than I do. I have a Bachelor's degree in Engineering Physics from University of California, at Berkeley and while not all of my peers agree with me…at least I am peered with anyone who have a complete undergraduate education in physics. Do you have anything equivalent? So don't act like I'm not qualified to call your conclusions into question because I unquestionably can.
The text itself tells you what to take literal and what to take figuratively. If the english translation doesn't tell you obviously then you can look at the hebrew and greek texts then it becomes clear. You can find many verified facts in Genesis. Like the locations of specific places mention. Either we know where they are. Or we don't know. No place has ever been proven not to exist that the Bible said existed.
On your second point about place names in the bible? What is your point? Great expectations mentions places that are real yet it is complete fiction.
We didn't think Troy existed either but when discovered did we suddenly drop to our knees and start believin in the story of Achilles, that he was the son of a god.
What's this the argument from place names?
You know that
Um, you said that there is no way to validate Genesis. By showing the Bible is correct about places, it adds to the believability of the Bible not takes away from it. Correct, that just because it gets a few fact right doesn't make the whole thing true. However what if you can't find anything it gets wrong? Then you can't say the Bible is false. The burden of proof is on you to find something that can be verified as wrong in the book of Genesis!
Wow, amazing logic Marcus.
The text tells you what to take figuratively or not? Where?
So why are there so many different sects that translate it differently? Why are there Young Earth Creationists (YECs) who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, but other religious groups that accept the earth is much older?
Some branches of religion even accept the commonly held scientific theory that the earth is about 4.5 Billion years old. Even within the same branch of religion they hold different beliefs. I have personally witnessed two Anglicans debating evolution. One (the priest) accepts evolution and that the earth is very old, but the other doesn't accept evolution.
People don't agree. Big surprise. You act like this is information I don't know. Old news. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. Why not read it for yourself and see which side is actually in line with it. The Bible is not conflicted. People are. In my opinion, you can't use the Bible to validate either position, because it doesn't say. I think the text is purposely not telling us which side is right. It wasn't important enough to the points that Genesis is making. Just because a book does not give you the information you think you want, doesn't mean you should try to force it, and read meanings and thoughts into it that aren't there. It also doesn't mean that there is no valid and true information being presented. Gracious, I guess that means each one of us have to evaluate the Bible for ourselves.
Boom – this makes the Bible worthless.
5.Excuse me, but you can prove things in science. I’ve measureed the speed of light in air. I’ve measured gravity. I’ve recreated many of the most famous experiments in physics and chemistry and I can tell you that those laws and equations are true. As for evolution, we don’t have the same litmus tests as we do in thermodynamics or newtonian phyiscs. It’s totally reasonable to reject macro evolution on the lack of concrete evidence and eliminating inferences if you apply the same level. Macro evolution cannot be made to “walk on all fours”.
No, science does NOT prove things. You can come to an accurate conclusion according to a theory. You measured the speed of light in air, gravity etc according to our current understanding of physics. You didn't prove anything.
On another note you have a complete lack of understanding of what the scientific method is and how it can be used. Look up inference.
In regards to number 8. All I can do is laugh at you. Read all your posts and your comments. You use metaphysics and pseudo-philosophy to squirm and slither your bible into something resembling truth. Not you, not ever? Pathetic.
P.s On the card analogy. Something had to happen, that exact sequence happened because CHANCE dictated it to happen. CHANCE. I am not saying evolution is chance at all. What I am trying to infer here is that our known universe is like a sequence of cards picked out at random. It just happens to work well.
11.Here are a few examples of where you know not to take Genesis literal
a.We don’t know how long a “day” was during the 6 days of creations; again the Hebrew does not expressly mean six 24-hour days or even that each day was an equal length
b.The geneologies do not completely list every individual, they just hit the important ones. To the Hebrew mind, you only need to list the important ones in the Western tradition we list everyone no matter if they did something important or not.
12.Just because God can do anything, it does noy follow that he did nothing. What sense does that make? None.
13.You would reject God and go to hell because you rejected him on less than 100% certainty!? Worse than that – missing out on your true purpose for which God made you? You like to live and die dangerously.I don’t like your using tiktaalik as evidence for why you accept macro evolution because you think it validates that the Bible is wrong therefore God does not exist. How can you really be sure? This too important not to be 100% convinced. And that’s been the best you have been able to come up with.
14.Your card analogy: What? “Something had to happen.” Fine..But why that way! Why these outcomes? It seems unlikely, given that it hasn’t happened anywhere else in the solar system, for human life to be here on earth right now. Given the probabilities it’s awesome that we are even here to ask the questions.What make this outcome more probable than any other? Nothing.
15.I’m still waiting fo a rebuttal of the scientists I referred to who don’t believe Tiktaalik is proof enough to infer that fish and amphibians have common ancestry.
On 11. One reason we as humans living in the 21st century "know" not to take the 6 days literally is that we have read other creation stories from other cultures and can see that it is a stone age explanation, though a poor one of how the universe came about. Compared to our knowledge of physics an cosmology.
You are just a rational man trying to over come cognitive dissonance .
On b) absolute bullshit you can't on the one hand say the bible contains cold hard facts scientific or historical and then hand wave away the discrepencies of two separate geneologies.
On 12 no idea what you are on about?
On 13 Pascalls wager is the best you can come up with?
11: The only reason you no longer take a day to mean a day is due to advances in scientific knowledge. It also make no sense to say a day means one thing in one place, and an entirely different thing in another.
13: How can you be certain that the bible is god's true word? There are many holy texts to choose from, each with the same amount of evidence supporting them and using the same arguments to put their case.
14: We have only peered into the smallest fraction of space – almost none of it. To say categorically that we are the only forms of life to exist is incredibly arrogant. Life seems to be a natural result of the universe, why could it not happen elsewhere?
11. I never said that a day in Genesis 1 is 24 hours or not. I don't know. No one knows. You have to look at the Hebrew. In Hebrew you use a different word than the one used in Genesis 1 when you are talking about a 24 hour day, so no, the Bible is not using the same word to use different things. It only appears so in English.
13. There is better evidence that the Bible is God's true Word than any other text. Have you ever researched it? Compared and Contrasted the Bible with the Quran, Book of Mormon, or any other religious text? Obviously not. I have.
14.i never said that there is not any like ours any where else in the universe. I said that there is no life like our own in this solar system. Please stop taking me out of context.
11. I never understood the Hebrew argument. What's so special about another language. What do you believe can be expressed in Hebrew that cannot be expressed in English (or any other language for that matter)? Even IF they did use different words – what does that prove?
13. Yes – 15 years of looking at the book and other religions. Making excuses for myself. Deluding myself into believing it was true. It's not.
14. Would you expect there to be life like ours within our own solar system? The other planets would kill us instantly – this is not a universe designed with us in mind.
11. You said you spent 15 years at a Bible School and you did not learn about Hebrew literature and the nuances of language? You've been cheated. You need to get your money back. A language is inextricably linked to the culture that uses it. You can't understand one without the other. Ideas in Hebrew cannot always be expressed as easily in English. And vice versa. It's the same thing in translating any language from one to another. In English word order matters to understand what is being conveyed in a sentence. This is not true in every other language, like Kione Greek (which is what the New Testament was written in) . If you have two Biblical passages in English where the word "day" is being used, if you don't know that in the original language the passages were written in, those words are actually different words with slightly different meanings, your understanding could be different. It's very important.
13. You missed the whole point: God wants a relationship with you. He loves you.
14. You are making my point for me. You mean to tell me we ended up on the only planet that can support our form of life, in the only place where we can easily make measurements and scientific observations by chance? We drew the lucky card? I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. My hat is off to you guys and I am truly humbled.
I never said anything about spending 15 years at "bible school" – what a collosal waste of time that would be. I spent 15 years IN a Christian school, being taught about the Bible, the arguments for a God, attending church, etc.
I understand there are nuances within each language and that context is important, but that does not preclude a notion from being adequately articulated in any of them. Sure it may be objectively more ineffecient to express some ideas in certain languages, but not impossible.
Is there such thing as bible school? That would be a massive waste of 15 years. Also, running over tired arguments constantly would wear pretty thin pretty quickly.
How would you know if the idea is being efficiently articulated for you to understand unless you also investigate the language that was first used to articulate the idea? I'm not trying to suggest that it would be impossible, but I think the "day" example is a great example. Hebrew is rich. Because you know nothing about Hebrew then of course you think Genesis is saying the universe was created in six 24-hour days. It does not really say that!
13. Pascal's Wager. That is what you're talking about. Unfortunately, it has many problems with it. Plus, you're entering a scientific field (evolution) into a problem meant to "sway atheists" to Christianity.
Hmm. What should I accept: the scientific theory, or the religion? Tough decision. I'll go with science. Sorry Jesus.
To Pascal the two issues were not separate ones at all. Don't forget he was a scientist and much our current levels of scientific knowledge and technology are directly based on his work. He went with Jesus. If he had valid points about air pressure and temperature and mathematics maybe he has a point about God. Maybe you should revisit the evidence.
Argument from authority. I'm not going to believe simply because a scientist did.
Hey, Isaac Newton was a creationist, but he was also an alchemist and insane. Should you believe the other things he did simply because you're a creationist, Marcus?
I'm not arguing from authority. I'm just pointing out that people who's opinion carries more weight than you disagrees. and by the way Newton was not a insane and while do not agree with him on every point, he has still contributed more to the collective knowledge of humanity than you. Remember Calculus? Remember to thank Newton.
His argument doesn't carry more weight than any person of today who has knowledge of evolution. Pascal had no knowledge of evolution. He lived in the 1600 hundreds. My knowledge severely out weighs his in most fields of science. There is a reason we know more than these people. It is because we moved on from childish ideas. We grew up, realised religion isn't the answer to any question and that god didn't do "it".
Everything you know is based on his work. I don't think he would have arrived at the same conclusions you have, given the same evidence. I see only assertions in your comment. No substance. Why is belief in God childish? It's childish to believe that things happen just to happen. Like the toddler who covers his face with his hands and thinks no one can see him because he can't see anyone. That is what you do with God.
You are a moron.
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good." Psalm 14:1
Pascal is most famous for his wager where he proposes it's better to beleive in a God than not. This is not evidence at all, just a very poorly thought out piece of logic.
14. Don't you understand the card analogy? Still?
The reason the Universe and life turned out the way it is due to factors we don't (and can't, due to Chaos theory) know. But there's nothing really special about what did happen, is there? I mean, there's life, but we shouldn't be surprised that there's life in a Universe in which we exist, should we? We are life after all.
Plus, you don't know the probabilities. Maybe the Universe had to turn out this way. We just don't know.
15. Yeah, I'm kind of busy at the moment, responding to all these comments, writing an essay, living my life… It will be done, just not right this second, Marcus.
11. And the Bible doesn't say it was six 24 hour days.
12. Language, Please. Profanity is for the unintelligent. I explained why you can't use the genealogies to figure out the age of the earth. And it also explain why Jesus' genealogies in Matthew (for Jews) does not match the on in Luke (for Greeks/Romans). Its looking art the text and asking…what point is the author clearly trying to make?…to what audience? That is how you do any critical text analysis look it up.
12. Did you read the part I am responding to? Guess not. NaonTiotami wrote that that if God can do anything that means you can't verify that he did anything. Makes sense? Thought not?
13. I think Pascal's wager is a good argument. Do you have a rebuttal? I have a wager. Pascal was a theist. He believed in a personal, transcendent, all-powerful God. He'd be laughing at your arguments. I'd wager that he was all smarter than you and me.
12.
Okay, the reason I said that was because if a God can do anything, and effect any event, then it cannot be scientifically verified, because any evidence at all is evidence for it.
I'll give you an example so you understand:
Let's say I find one morning that there's a dead cat in my yard that wasn't there the night before. I could invoke God to explain why it happened, because God can do anything, right?
However, I find video footage of a cat fight on my home surveillance camera system, and one cat dies and says in the yard dead. It looks like the same cat that you see outside right now. Seems like evidence that the cat got there because it was killed in a cat fight? Well, I can still invoke God, because he could have planted the evidence to make it seem like there was a cat fight when actually there wasn't. So the God hypothesis seems to still be consistent with the evidence.
The point I'm trying to make is, any evidence for a natural explanation of a phenomena could also be "evidence" for a God's intervention. Therefore, because it fits EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT COULD POSSIBLY EXIST, it's not really an explanation.
Do you understand now?
You seem to continue to labor under the assumption that I disagree because I don't understand what you are saying. Wrong. I disagree because I do understand what you are saying. Just because something can be an answer to the question does not mean that it can't be the answer. God works through nature. Understanding nature and natural processes helps us understand God himself. He doesn't always interfere with natural processes. When he does that we call those instances "miracles". Those do defy explanations. Most natural processes do not. defy explanation.
15. What scientists? Are they unbiased? Are they DI peons? Creationists? If so then they are automatically bunk by definition. For they hold a biblical view and the bible is "infallible". Get a grip
Show me a scientist, or human being for that matter, who is without bias? The biblical view is not untenable. and should not be dismissed out of hand. I will go and find a list of the scientist I speak. One comes to mind: Jay Richards. About a year ago he debated Christopher Hitchens on Intelligent Design. So what if Richards is a theist? I'd stack his credentials against yours any day of the week. You seem angry. Don't go away mad. What are "DI peons" any way?
Scientists are biased. But SCIENCE isn't. It is designed as to not be. A GOOD scientist should come up with an objective unbiased result. Christian scientists who take the bible literally tend to be extremely biased. Intelligent design has been proven to be bunk. The fundamental theories at it's core are just wrong (specifically it's attempt at information theory which breaks the laws of thermodynamics).
I am angry. Very angry that you are so willfully ignorant and obtuse in your attempts at logic.
(DI peons are people who work for the Discovery Institute.)
It's one thing to admit one's own biases, it's another to accuse another of Bias. Examine your own predjudices before assuming biases in others. And when you make such accusations try to be more specific. I mean what are you accusing scientists who reject macro evolution to be biased against?
3. Marcus, do you know what phylogenetic analysis is? If not, I'll give you a brief overview (for more, you should read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.htm... )
Phylogenetic analysis is the process of categorising organisms into "phylogenies" (or trees) of relatedness using the similarity of their genomes.
For example, you could phylogenetically analyse your family, and it would sort you into a nested hierarchy that looks very much like your family tree (it would be basically the same).
Phylogenetic analysis has been shown to work extremely well in determining how close various organisms are related to each other in experiments and tests (here's just one such study: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.htm...) and so it has been applied to test the relatedness of various organisms that are predicted to be related according to evolutionary theory. Note that evolution (more specifically, common descent) states that all living organisms are related to one another, so phylogenetic analysis can organise any collection of organisms into a tree of relatedness. (here's an example of what a phylogeny looks like: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/ph...
Basically, what I'm trying to get to is that phylogenetic analysises have been done numerous, numerous times on many different organisms, and they give VAST amounts of evidence towards the common descent of all living things.
It is the phylogenetic analysis of both fish and amphibians (against one another) that shows they are related and must have had a common ancestor in the past.
And, just so you don't ask, you don't need the DNA of the common ancestor to perform the analysis, just like you don't need the DNA of your grandfather to genetically test to see if you're related to your long-lost cousin (on that grandfather's side), even though he is your common ancestor.
3. Marcus, do you know what phylogenetic analysis is? If not, I'll give you a brief overview (for more, you should read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.htm...
Phylogenetic analysis is the process of categorising organisms into "phylogenies" (or trees) of relatedness using the similarity of their genomes.
For example, you could phylogenetically analyse your family, and it would sort you into a nested hierarchy that looks very much like your family tree (it would be basically the same).
Phylogenetic analysis has been shown to work extremely well in determining how close various organisms are related to each other in experiments and tests (here's just one such study: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.htm...and so it has been applied to test the relatedness of various organisms that are predicted to be related according to evolutionary theory. Note that evolution (more specifically, common descent) states that all living organisms are related to one another, so phylogenetic analysis can organise any collection of organisms into a tree of relatedness. (here's an example of what a phylogeny looks like: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/ph...
Basically, what I'm trying to get to is that phylogenetic analysises have been done numerous, numerous times on many different organisms, and they give VAST amounts of evidence towards the common descent of all living things.
It is the phylogenetic analysis of both fish and amphibians (against one another) that shows they are related and must have had a common ancestor in the past.
And, just so you don't ask, you don't need the DNA of the common ancestor to perform the analysis, just like you don't need the DNA of your grandfather to genetically test to see if you're related to your long-lost cousin (on that grandfather's side), even though he is your common ancestor.
Kidding right? Proof is validation of a conclusion according to a theory. What is proof to you? You are the one who squirming and slithering. I know what "inference" is, do you? Doesn't seem like it. Glad you are getting a laugh when you are not being hateful. It's really pathetic. If evolution is not being dictated by chance then what is it being driven by? If the universe is like a sequence of cards picked out at random, then how is that not chance? You are not making any sense at all.
Could you please repost this in reply to the comment you are responding to? It would help people follow the line of discussion easier.
Ahh but that would disadvantage Marcus' game severly
yes i am. haha. Evolution isn't dictated by chance. I will not explain something to you that you SHOULD know if you are in a debate about evolution. You have obviously no decent knowledge. Waste of my time and Jacks.
If you are going to argue that chance does not dictate evolution then what effect does chance have? If there is nothing directing the climatic environment, food source, and the other things that cause the mutations that lead to one species evolving into another, then what is it. All those things speak to chance.
Yes, I realise that God could still be the answer, but we could never know that. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Oh, and as for miracles, can you list some?
Yes, I realise that God could still be the answer, but we could never know that. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Oh, and as for miracles, can you list some?
A. Yes, we can know God for yourself. The whole point of what the Bible is teaching is that you can have a personal relationship with your creator! Like Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Deborah, Samson, David, Solomon, Joash, and all the other people we see in the Bible who trusted God. You can know for sure if you want to know.
B. You want miracles:
I had crippling rhumatoid arthritis for 5 years and God healed me.
I know people God healed of cancer and the best doctors in America said that there was nothing they could do.
Jesus turning Water in Wine is a good example
God making the time stand still in Joshua 10
I could go on….a "miracle" by definition is when the laws of nature suspended or changed for a purpose.
A. But how do I verify the Bible? It becomes a circular argument based on supposed divine authority, usually. Unless you have something different.
B.
- Anecdote: you could have been healed without the "Christianity", you simply don't know. A scientific study looking at prayer and healing would be good though.
- Another anecdote, plus, you could have made that up, I have no idea. Not very convincing.
- It's in the Bible, and therefore not testable. Kind of like an anecdote, but even more useless.
- Again, in the Bible. I'm not going to accept miracles for God's existence if they're in a book I don't accept because I don't believe! I would have to believe to accept the miracles, but by that time I already believe, so it's useless.
Please go on, if you could. But no more anecdotes or things from the Bible. They are useless when trying to convince people.
I hope you understand where I'm coming from on this.
Anecdotal evidence can't be dismissed out of hand. Much anecdotal evidence of the move of God can be documented. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Your mind is made up. You asked for examples of God moving through history, and will not accept any Biblical evidence because you deny that its true. If i give you historical evidence you would either attribute it to something else, call it a myth, or use your card analogy again. I take it that you have never actually experienced God moving in your life or someone you have known is such a way that it could be anything else than divine intervention. I realize that is a gift not everyone gets. For this reason, I will concede this point. Continuing arguing about miracles is counter productive. Many people who believe in God also don't believe miracles happen anymore. I disagree. Doesn't matter however as to the existence of God. If you choose to use "miracles" as your stumbling block to belief in God…your choice. My question however is why would deny supernatural miracles and yet accept the "Big Bang" and macro evolution with less than 100% evidential proof?
Would you accept "evidence" from the Koran? I am sure you would not, but why? Would you want to verify the accuracy (or otherwise) of this holy text which is central to the lives of millions? That's all we are asking.
You state the Bible is the perfect word of the living creator, so we are asking how you know that.
I would accept evidence from the Koran if there were some to take, wrestle with, and analyze. I have looked for it from the Koran and have not found any.
I know the Bible is the Perfect will of God because it perfectly descibes the human condition. Error free in every way that it can be tested. If you can prove that it has an error than it's not the word of God because it says that God never makes errors. No one has been able to do that.
So that includes the error of the earth being created before light or is this just another misunderstanding from the greek?
On the off chance that you are being serious….yes it does…The Bible does not say that light was created after earth. Genesis 1:2 does not say the earth existed. It was void and without form. Light was brought into being before the earth was. Just like the scientific evidence points to. Have you ever bothered to read Genesis?
Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
Yes being entirely serious. It is quite clear to me that the planet earth has been created above, fomless and empty (contradictory I know, but perhaps the writer meant without land masses and montains, vegetation) followed by the passage about the spirit floating over the waters (which necessitate the existance of the planet) then hey presto the lights come on.
Then genesis 14 talks about God creating the Sun and the moon and the stars after the planet has been formed.
Runs contrary to what we know about formation of galaxies and solar systems. Planets form around stars, stars give off light hence light exists before planets.
Biblical timeline:
Water covered Planet,
creation of light,
creation of atmosphere
creation of land massess and seas
creation of vegetation
creation of moon sun and stars(whence light comes from)
creation of creatures
creation of man
So yes I have read genesis and you have been shown up to be the complete and utter nonce that you are.
1. "nonce"?
2. I think you may need to think your time line. The Light described in verse one is not the same as the sun or moon.
3. I take this portion of Genesis literally, but you can't possibly think that it gives all the details. Or that it's talking about six 24 hour days. Like I have said so many times that the hebrew word translated "day" only means a "period of time". Like wise there are other ways to look at this. I find that if I see something wrong in the Bible then maybe I don't understand what it is saying. You must remember, none of your argument or criticisms are new. They have been used before and will continue to be used. Here is an example of other ways to understand what the Bible is saying instead of your misreading:
http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the...
The Bible is complex. Too complex for anyone individual to understand every single thing in it. I'm still learning myself.
The Bible is not nonsense because you don't understand it.
Your arguments get pathetically weaker everytime you try and twist your way out of the knot you have tied yourself into.
Whence cometh the light? God the lightbulb?
And you seem to skim over the scientic fact that stars form before planets, unlike the story suggested in genesis.
The age of my arguments and the patheic apologetics you offer in reponse have no bearing on the situation.
The bible is not complex – badly edited, compiled from numerous sources, filtered through different languages and cultures yes, but not complicated.
The bible is not nonsense, it is scientifically incorrect as shown above. I understand it both as a work of literature and as historical artifact.
Do not bother replying to me Marcus you arguments only convince me of your willful ignorance and lack of education.
The Bible talks of God as being light. Haven't you ever read it. I'm amazed. You are not like your profile at all. "Pathetic"
describes your apologetic not mine. You offer no rebuttal or no well-reasoned argument to the response I offered to you. Did you even read the other viewpoint? You did not interact with it. The Bible is not poorly edited. It hangs together and agrees with itself despite the numerous sources. You haven't shown that it's scientifically incorrect because you have not proven your interpretation is the correct one.
Your argument is summed up as "Nuh uh!" And that is not an apologetic.
Maligning my education and my knowledge base does not change that either. Unless of course you would like to malign the University of California, at Berkeley. Which is your right, if you choose. But attacking me instead of refuting the answer I gave only serves to show how desperately ignorant you are. Anything not to submit yourself to God. Truly sad.
You asked for the bible to be proved in error.
I have shown it to be in error.
You supply the argument from misinterpretation yet the text is clear. The light is separate from god it does not say "and the light shone from god does it? "
I'll rebut your red herrings when you can actually support your own claims.
Nuh-Uh – you're kidding right?
As for maligning Berkley – Well you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.
Do they teach you critical reading at Berkley?
So as to the bible hanging together and not agreeing with itself
Let us just stick with genesis where as I have pointed out above god apparently makes the beasts before man but in Genesis 2 its the other way around.
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
You didn't show any error only that you know how to take the Bible out of context. Genesis 2 does not conflict with Genesis 1 because Genesis 2 just gives more detail about that 6th period of time. The Bible does not say where the light came from in Genesis 1:2. Stop reading into the text what isn't there. Well at-least you are quoting from it. You just don't know what you are quoting. I have supported my claims about what the text says. Where is your support? The Bible is right. You are wrong.
You made me laugh so hard I farted Marcus. Enjoy your weekend
It's not about 100% proof – it's about how to explain the facts before us in a way that makes the most sense. No one in science will ever claim with 100% conviction they have the answers. A theory will stand for as long as it is not proved wrong. In this way corrections and progress can be made. This is entirely opposite to religious dogma.
Why would the universe have to turn out this way? There are more probabilities than we can count. Why this one? Life is special and precious. It's rare. We have been looking for signs of other intelligent life and have found nothing. How do you account for it. Of course I understand the card analogy. I've measured….I've weighed it…I have found it wanting.
You're looking at the probability after the fact!
Back to the cards: what you're saying is like throwing the cards on the ground and seeing that a royal flush has landed on the ground as the only cards facing up, in the right order and in a perfect line. Wow, the odds against that would have been massive! But, because you're observing the event AFTER it happened, it is already predetermined.
It would make more sense with what you were saying if you had PREDICTED the Universe would turn out the way it did, but then, it would still be down to random chance (at least from our perspective, as we don't know all the details).
Do you NOW understand?
who said I didn't understand your point. I have another example: How can you explain how Jesus perfectly fulfilled all the Old Testament prophesies concerning the Messiah to a tee which were written down centuries before his birth? That is like predicting before hand numerous factors lining up in the life of single man. Since I did not throw the cards out, there is no way I could predict how the cards would land. The best example, from our point of view is that we know the deck of cards was thrown and the royal flush is laying out face up,because we are here to observe it. I am suggesting that God threw those cards and knew that he was going to get that royal flush. If we are going to equate the royal flush to all the conditions that make our form of life possible in this reality.
Read the bible some more. You will see the Jesus "Fulfilling" the prophecies is basically just retro fitting and a scramble by the authors of this atrocious lie.
How is it hard to fulfill prophecies which you have written down in front of you. Give them to me, I'll fulfill them right now. ( I would need some money however
)
That is a stupid thought. Jesus arranged to be born in Bethlehem?
Jesus arranged for Judas to betray him for 30 pieces of silver? All of this is foretold in the old testament in texts written Centuries before Jesus' Time. And there are many, many other examples. Dumb. I thought you smarter than that. Your ignorance insults me.
Yes, life is precious and (as far as we can tell) rare. It's all we certainly know we have. I am not going to waste the only thing I know to be true (that I exist) trying to follow the impossible rules of a mythical creature who probably doesn't exist. I will spend my life trying to better the world for those around me, not buying a ticket to a better life after I am dead.
You on the other hand look forward to an eternity in heaven with Jesus – an entirely selfish gain I might add. What motivates you to even attempt to imporve this world when it pales into utter insignificance against the magnitude of an eternal afterlife? Why not just kill yourself now to be with Jesus?
Oh – he has a plan for you. Of course. Any idea what it is? Bet not. I am sure it will give your life purpose when you find out what it is. I might ask you one question at this point – if getting to heaven is the purpose of this life, then what is the purpose of being in heaven for eternity? Why do it? What is the point?
You missed everything I was saying God's purpose for me is to better this world. I'm supposed to use the resources I have to help others. The only reason you and I exist is because God said so. I am here to be a husband, father, engineer, scientist, and to do all I can to point others to Jesus. So that they can have peace with God and know the Joy that he has for them. My life is not about me. It's about fulfilling my purpose. The desire for heaven is not about what you will have it's about being with the creator. Know him and yourself fully. That is the point. It is in a way impossible to be had this side of life. It's about have a better relationship with every human being you are in contact with because God makes you better than you were before you surrendered your life to him.
Strange one of my comments has vanished, along with Marcus' reply? Not to worry perhaps goddidit. :evilgrin:
I don't know if I've mentioned this already (these threads are getting huge!) but I started reading "Why Darwin Matters" by Michael Shermer about the same time I first started reading yours and Marcus' blog. If either of you haven't read it (and I strongly recommend Marcus et al read it – but try and read it with their "god switch" off), here's a few excerpts: (I'm only half way through)
5 reasons why people resist the truth of evolution:
1. A general resistance to science.
2. Belief that evolution is a threat to specific religious tenets.
3. The fear that evolution degrades our humanity.
4. The equation of evolution with ethical nihilism and moral de-generation.
5. The fear that evolutionary theory implies we have a fixed human nature.
Um, these 5 points are straw men. Let me enumerate
1. I love science and want to go where ever the evidence leads without making leaps in logic making inferences and conclusion that can't be backed up.
2. Evolution is only a threat to specific religious tents if it conflicts with what the Bible says. And the conclusions and world view based on it is what is scary. People use evolution to say the Bible is not true and there is no conclusive proof that you can say that.
3. Depends on how you define "humanity". I define humanity in the context of being created on purpose, not randomly evolving. And because of this we have a responsibility to protect and nurture even the weakest of us, not just the strong. "Survival of the fittest" was embraced by Nazism. Do you really want to go back to that?
4. See number 3. If you think it's a good idea, then you are with Hitler.
5. Bible-Believing Christians do not fear the idea of fixed human nature because that is what the Bible says. This is why we need Jesus Christ. Duh!
A quote:
from "Why Darwin Matters", Michael Shermer pg 45
Creationists often demand "one transitional fossil", when provided with that fossil they then demand the transitional fossils in-between [paraphrased]. This can be called:
The Fossil Fallacy
When I read that I thought "how could anyone not understand evolution is a sound scientific theory, how could they try and debunk it with one or two arguments?". Then I re-read some of Marcus' and facilis' comments and I despaired.
(quotes from "Why Darwin Matters" by Michael Shermer)
[ We know evolution happened not because of a single transitional fossil ... but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, palaeontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics ...
When I read that I thought "how could anyone not understand evolution is a sound scientific theory, how could they try and debunk it with one or two arguments?". Then I re-read some of Marcus' and facilis' comments and I despaired.]
When I re-read your comments, I see that the emperor has no clothes, and a bunch of people pretending to not see him naked. The conclusion does not match the data from all those diverse fields. A lot of inferring is being done and no proof offered
It doesn't match the data? How do you know? Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the scientific community hasn't picked up on this, in essence, conspiracy?
By the way, you still haven't replied to my phylogenetic analysis comment. Do have anything to say about that? http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350#IDComment142592...
I've looked at the data as well as you have. You have been trying to argue that the "transitional fossils" lead to the inference that all forms of life have a common ancestor, yet no ancestor has ever been identified. I'm not conspiracy nut, but I happen to know of a petition by 100 scientists who believe that the Evolution theory is false. I'm not a "lone voice crying in the wilderness". You just refuse to listen to the other side.
I did respond to your phylogenetic analysis comment. I don't see it here. Showing that various forms of life have similar DNA sequences does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they have common ancestry. Considering that DNA is made up of the same proteins no matter what form of life you are talking about, it does show that you can rule out chance and coincidence. I would infer a designer….some one did it on purpose. And to avoid the backlash, I'll be clear: The God of the Bible did it.
First, off you didn't reply to the comment. I have not deleted any of your comments, and there are no comments waiting to be moderated. I don't know where that comments went, or if you even made that comment.
Second of all, that petition: can I see it?
Thirdly, what data have you seen? Where did you get this information from? Can you cite and reveal your sources?
Fourthly, similar DNA is VERY strong evidence for common descent, and I don't see why it's not. How else could organisms share genetic sequences if not through heredity?
1. I sent that comment reply in the e-mail ('ve got comments being e-mailed back to me.. I saw something in it that said you could reply by replying to that e-mail. Guess I was mistaken. Shame too, I really liked how that one came out. I believe that you haven't deleted any of my comments. but some one did.
2. Of course you can see it:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100Sci...
3. I did cite my sources in the first blog post i did about tiktaalik. I have trhree links from people who disagree with your conclusions and you nor anyone has responded to the points they raise other than to say they are creationists so they don't matter.
4. Heredity is only one possible explanation. I'm not coming against that. It does not prove it. You are inferring again. How else could it happen? When God made everything he chose to do it that way because all life on earth have to have some similarities to coexist. For example,
1. I'm the only one who could have deleted the comment, and so I probably (somehow) did it accidentally.
2. Yep, more Discovery Institute. About two of the people on that list had anything to do with evolution in their scientific field. And how many scientists is that? 0.5% of America's total? Less?
3. Those blog posts are all about the fossil record, not phylogenetics. I'd still like to see that data.
4. What other natural explanation could produce similar genetic sequences? (Supernatural explanations, again, don't count, because you can say ANYTHING is supernaturally caused)
And why do organisms need to have similar genetic codes to function together in an ecosystem? Even more weird, why do they need similar NONFUNCTIONAL sequences, such as ERVs? Seems like God didn't know what he was doing.
1. Understood. As far as I'm concern it's squashed. I have no need to discuss it further. I accept your apology.
2. You have an extreme bias against the Discovery Institute. Is it because they believe the Bible is true or is it because you think they have bad scientists who don't know what they are doing? If it's the latter, you need to provide proof that they are incompetent scientists. Remember there was a time when the majority of scientists thought that the earth was flat. When the majority thought that flys spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Those were the prevailing mainstream ideas until a small percentage of scientists challenged them.This point has no proof.
3. I will find data on Phylogenetics, but i will post them on my blog. I was referring to fossil evidence. In the meantime, you can't issue a challenge without answering the challenge already put forth. I'm waiting on the rebuttal concerning the fossil record.
4. Saying that the similarity in DNA structure and material was designed and implemented is not a supernatural explanation. Is it supernatural explanation to say that HTML standards were designed to make information viewable on the Internet?
5. How do you know ERVs are NONFUNCTIONAL? Maybe we just don't know what they are for. I'm way into information technology, and DNA is a lot like coding in computer programming. One programmer may look at some code and say that code block being observed is junk – not needed – but only the one wrote the code could say that.
1. Understood. As far as I'm concern it's squashed. I have no need to discuss it further. I accept your apology.
2. You have an extreme bias against the Discovery Institute. Is it because they believe the Bible is true or is it because you think they have bad scientists who don't know what they are doing? If it's the latter, you need to provide proof that they are incompetent scientists. Remember there was a time when the majority of scientists thought that the earth was flat. When the majority thought that flys spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Those were the prevailing mainstream ideas until a small percentage of scientists challenged them.This point has no proof.
3. I will find data on Phylogenetics, but i will post them on my blog. In the meantime, you can't issue a challenge without answering the challenge already put forth. I'm waiting on the rebuttal concerning the fossil record.
4. Saying that the similarity in DNA structure and material was designed and implemented is not a supernatural explanation. Is it supernatural explanation to say that HTML standards were designed to make information viewable on the Internet?
5. How do you know ERVs are NONFUNCTIONAL? Maybe we just don't know what they are for. I'm way into information technology, and DNA is a lot like coding in computer programming. One programmer may look at some code and say that code block being observed is junk – not needed – but only the one wrote the code could say that.
DNA isn't a coding LANGUAGE. It is an expressive language. Something like HTML is. Do not delve into something, again, that you do not know enough about (such as physics when Jack showed you up earlier). Try again.
I know a great deal of computer language because I do a lot programming in various languages for several years. And the only reason you think that I do not understand physics is because you don't know as much about physics. DNA is not just expressive like HTML, because it actually tells cells what to do, not just what to look like. Hypertext Mark up Language (HTML) tells a browser how to present and format information. It used to only be used that way without any actual processing taking place, but the Internet has changed where processing takes place on both the client machine and the server. Because of this, I'd liken DNA more to an interpreted computer language like SCHEME or JavaScript. Such scripting languages tell computers how to process data but it isn't compiled but interpreted line by line as the software or web page is ran. DNA is wonderful and Information Technology can be used in analogy to a point, but the analogy does break down if you press it too far. By the way, in information technology, HTML is still often referred to as "code". I have 2 degrees in Engineering (one of them has an emphasis in physics) and 1 degree in information technology with an emphasis in computer programming. Make no mistake…just because you disagree with me, and immediately willing to reject what I say without really thinking about it, I'm not uneducated or ignorant.
Not to detract from the discussion at hand, but I've mentioned your blog to the admin of the Skeptic Wiki, Naon, and they're very impressed. If you'd like to contribute any particular items for that website, they'd be honoured.
Really? Wow, thanks, Kylie! I'll have a look and see if they lack anything I could add.
How did that come up? Were you just having a simple chat or something?
[...] educated in science” at the prestigious Berkeley University. Apparently you “2 degrees in Engineering and 1 degree in information technology.” I am stunned. What are they teaching you [...]