Gaps in Evolution

[CathPhilosopher]

One of the mistakes Creationists make is using ‘odds’ that seem to be ‘impossible’ to try to back up their ideas. They are simply not familiar with the law of large numbers. Try this. Hold out a deck of cards to a Creationist and have them draw fifteen of them. Then ask which were drawn and in which order. You can then, with all truth and seriousness, tell them that the odds of them drawing that particular sequence are trillions to one against, and so they must not have drawn them- God must have created them in their hand.

The “law of large numbers” in its formal sense doesn’t have much to do with that example. Any creationist worth his salt (though they may be few in number) would respond that there’s nothing particular special about that sequence, and so there is no reason to posit either a human trick or a divine miracle to produce it.

The usual problem with such probability calculations is that they assume that everything has to be done at once, and therefore each element of the probability calculation is independent, and they can simply be multiplied together. For anything that could be the result of a process of replication with changes, the elements are not independent. That is one major problem with Dembski’s argument (link is to a post giving a partial critique of it).

 

[buffalo]

No its not. If you are an athiest the ONLY thing it means is you reject the claims of the existence of the gods proposed by man.

Catholics do too.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo;5397680:

Charles Darwin;5397615:

You dont think mass genocide, encouraging rape, slavery and torturing people for eternity insane? The god of the bible is one of, if not the most evil character in the whole of fiction. Even if it did exist i wouldn’t worship it, i would believe it existed but i couldn’t worship that.

Focus on their souls. Where are their souls? Life on earth is but a wink of eternity.

There is a good book by Scott Hahn called
A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture

that will help you get through this since clearly you keep posting this. Again, you need to open your mind and heart and study up.

If an elevator showed up right now in front of your face to take you to heaven would you get on it?

 

[buffalo]

The usual problem with such probability calculations is that they assume that everything has to be done at once, and therefore each element of the probability calculation is independent, and they can simply be multiplied together. For anything that could be the result of a process of replication with changes, the elements are not independent. That is one major problem with Dembski’s argument (link is to a post giving a partial critique of it).

Odds are a starting point. Couple it with purpose and it makes sense.

 

[josie_L]

No its not. If you are an athiest the ONLY thing it means is you reject the claims of the existence of the gods proposed by man.

Buddy, you can claim till your blue in the face that atheists (although I refer to the militant kind) harbour no agenda, it will do you no good. Do you know why? Because I can read.

P.S. There’s enough material out there to prove otherwise. Richard Dawkins and the like have an agenda. Get over it.

 

[StAnastasia]

[You dont think mass genocide, encouraging rape, slavery and torturing people for eternity insane? The god of the bible is one of, if not the most evil character in the whole of fiction. Even if it did exist i wouldn’t worship it, i would believe it existed but i couldn’t worship that.

Charles Darwin, I agree with you about the way the God of the Old Testament is portrayed. But remember, that is not God; it is merely snapshots out of the biography of “God” as experienced by one small, politically insignificant desert tribe as they evolved and matured in their faith over centuries. Naturally this “God” will reflect the patriarchal and pre-scientific, and the sometimes petty and vengeful and self-centered concerns of that people.

I think that if you took the trouble to read the Bible in order – that is, to read the various passages and texts in the order in which they were written, which is not the order in which they appear in the Bible – you would see gradual and subtle shifts in the perception of God on the part of the Hebrew authors. You may not want to invest this time, but if you don’t, then in your theological ignorance you are in no position to criticize the biblical portrayal, no matter how funny a Dawkinsian caricature may seem.

StAnastasia
[/quote]

 

[Eleve]

If Scripture is infallible, and Scripture records God ordering genocide, then what do the perceptions of the Israelites have to do with it?

 

[josie_L]

If Scripture is infallible, and Scripture records God ordering genocide, then what do the perceptions of the Israelites have to do with it?

I think what she means is that because God revealed himself to the Israelites in degrees their perceptions of him were as yet not fully developed.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think what she means is that because God revealed himself to the Israelites in degrees their perceptions of him were as yet not fully developed.

Correct. Similarly, iIn the history of the United States, there were those who perceived God’s gift of America to whites as justification for exterminating the Indians during Westward expansion, and for enslaving blacks. Few now hold this theological opinion outside places like Bob Jones University.

 

[texson]

Evolution is a theory, and a damn good one at that! I think it’s how God created animals and stuff. It certainly fits with His way of working slowly, patiently, not rushing or hurrying. And the Catholic Church dose not say evolution is false, nor dose it say creationism is true. In fact, the Church teaches that the story of creation is symbolic, not literalistic.

Darwin’s ideas of evolutionary change do not qualify as a theory, though the Darwinist religionists constantly call it that (the reason most think it is a valid theory). It doesn’t even technically qualify as a hypothesis - which must be testable through the scientific process, and it cannot be.

The book of Genesis does in fact, tell a story of a literal miraculous creation that happened in six literal, 24 hour days. The Hebrew word “yom” means a day, not a nebulous span of time. If you believe that any of Genesis is historically true and that some of the people in the latter stories are flesh and bone people, at what point do you determine that the stories switched from symbolism to factual account?
Going deeper, in the Gospels, when the lineage of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ is traced back to Adam, the first created son of God, at what point and how do you determine who is mere symbolism and who is real?

It’s either all fairy tale or it’s all real (excepting parables). I pity the fool who claims the entire Bible is a bunch of fairy tales.

 

[Eleve]

Correct. Similarly, iIn the history of the United States, there were those who perceived God’s gift of America to whites as justification for exterminating the Indians during Westward expansion, and for enslaving blacks. Few now hold this theological opinion outside places like Bob Jones University.

What’s with 1 Samuel 15, then?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

What do the last four pages of posts have to do with gaps in the fossil record?

This thread was LONG ago derailed into a philosophical one. I tried my best to get it back on task, but then Mr. Darwin showed up and all hell broke loose. I went along with it but bailed out as soon as it became readily obvious that Mr. Darwin is being purposefully obtuse in his reluctance to admit that he (just like everyone else) is approaching this with a philosophical axiom in hand.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charles Darwin, I agree with you about the way the God of the Old Testament is portrayed. But remember, that is not God; it is merely snapshots out of the biography of “God” as experienced by one small, politically insignificant desert tribe as they evolved and matured in their faith over centuries. Naturally this “God” will reflect the patriarchal and pre-scientific, and the sometimes petty and vengeful and self-centered concerns of that people.

I think that if you took the trouble to read the Bible in order – that is, to read the various passages and texts in the order in which they were written, which is not the order in which they appear in the Bible – you would see gradual and subtle shifts in the perception of God on the part of the Hebrew authors. You may not want to invest this time, but if you don’t, then in your theological ignorance you are in no position to criticize the biblical portrayal, no matter how funny a Dawkinsian caricature may seem.

StAnastasia

Right, so what your telling me is the bible is wrong? I can live with that, for i agree with that 100%

 

[josie_L]

Right, so what your telling me is the bible is wrong? I can live with that, for i agree with that 100%

You must have poor comprehensive skills.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You must have poor comprehensive skills.

How so? All i am asking is if the bible is an accurate representation of the character of god? It seems StAnastasia does not believe so.

This means when it comes to the character of god, the bible got it wrong.

I would like to know what this is based on. Seems a little strange to me, as the bible is the only “source” (and i use that term loosely) of infromation on the character of god.

Seems to me StAnastasia is (quite rightly) having problems dealing with the immorality of god, as portrayed by the bible.

 

[kalt]

Right, so what your telling me is the bible is wrong? I can live with that, for i agree with that 100%

If you’re using it as a science book, it’s dead wrong, of course. But that isn’t the truth we’re talking about. The truth we’re talking about is God.

The Bible was written over many centuries. The authors lived at different times, wrote in different languages, wrote to different audiences, and used different techniques to get their point accross.

The Bible isn’t a science book. If you look to it to find proof of a scientific theory, you’re looking in the wrong book.

 

[4everjustjesus]

The Church neither denies the theory of evolution nor accepts it. For all we know, God could have just !boom! created humans or had them evolve. But I do know this, Jesus came and died for HUMANKIND, not monkeys. And since I’m a human, that’s perfect for me!!!

 

[4everjustjesus]

If you’re using it as a science book, it’s dead wrong, of course. But that isn’t the truth we’re talking about. The truth we’re talking about is God.

The Bible was written over many centuries. The authors lived at different times, wrote in different languages, wrote to different audiences, and used different techniques to get their point accross.

The Bible isn’t a science book. If you look to it to find proof of a scientific theory, you’re looking in the wrong book.

I agree 100% the Bible is a spiritual guidebook… NOT a science book. Why don’t people see that?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

If you’re using it as a science book, it’s dead wrong, of course. But that isn’t the truth we’re talking about. The truth we’re talking about is God.

The Bible was written over many centuries. The authors lived at different times, wrote in different languages, wrote to different audiences, and used different techniques to get their point accross.

The Bible isn’t a science book. If you look to it to find proof of a scientific theory, you’re looking in the wrong book.

Science has nothing to do with it? I’m asking if the bible is an accurate representation of the character of god?

 

[StAnastasia]

Science has nothing to do with it? I’m asking if the bible is an accurate representation of the character of god?

You miss the point. There is no single portrayal of God in the Bible, but rather many different perspectives from a people evolving over centuries in their understanding of God.