If evolution theory were true

[PhilVaz]

abc << I never told you I can speak another language and you simply don’t think I can speak a third language. >>

OK OK I apologize. You type well enough to be barely understandable, and I applaud you for learning English as your third language. :bowdown2:

Now study hard that TalkOrigins site and maybe you can successfully debate with the big boys, like Alec (hecd2), myself, steveanderson, Orogeny, zian, rossum, and the other canonized evolutionary SAINTS on these forums.

Phil P

 

[rossum]

PhilVaz:

Alec (hecd2), myself, steveanderson, Orogeny, zian, rossum, and the other canonized evolutionary SAINTS on these forums.

Phil P

I would prefer to be canonised as an Arhat or Bodhisattva, but if you really insist I will let you canonise me as a Saint. If the Buddha can be made a Saint then I suppose I can as well. Do I get a framed certificate from the Pope to hang on my wall?

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

PhilVaz:

Now study hard that TalkOrigins site and maybe you can successfully debate with the big boys, like Alec (hecd2), myself, steveanderson, Orogeny, zian, rossum, and the other canonized evolutionary SAINTS on these forums.

Phil P

I’m not worthy!!!:bowdown:

Peace

Tim

 

[Ianjo99]

PhilVaz:

abc << I never told you I can speak another language and you simply don’t think I can speak a third language. >>

OK OK I apologize. You type well enough to be barely understandable, and I applaud you for learning English as your third language. :bowdown2:

Now study hard that TalkOrigins site and maybe you can successfully debate with the big boys, like Alec (hecd2), myself, steveanderson, Orogeny, zian, rossum, and the other canonized evolutionary SAINTS on these forums.

Phil P

If I had one goal in life, just a singular goal, it would be to join the greats Ill do it someday when I finish my bio degree

SOMEDAY!!! shakes fist in air

 

[abcdefg]

leave those adulation to PM please.

 

[Ianjo99]

abcdefg:

leave those adulation to PM please.

But of course, my apologies

 

[abcdefg]

Ianjo99:

But of course, my apologies

Never mind

 

[abcdefg]

1. How to interpret Gen 5:5

****
Gen 5:5 And all the time that Adam lived, came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

KJV:

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Even if one interprets it not literally, it has to correspond to some real event. a life span of 930 years is far longer than that of apes and men we have ever known

 

[PLP]

Science in general argues against a literal interpretation of the Bible, indeed of every ancient scripture.

The Earth was not created in six days ca. 6,000 years ago. God did not actually make human beings by scooping mud and breathing into it. The Sun does not circle around the Earth; God did not in fact make the sun stand still for Joshua’s benefit. No matter how high one climbs, one cannot see the four corners of the Earth. There was no global flood. The Jews were never in captivity in Egypt, they did not spend 40 years in the Sinai desert, and they did not invade Caanan*.

The observable universe is ~13.7 billion years old. The Earth is ~4 billion years old. Life has existed on Earth for 2-3 billion years. The Earth is round and orbits the sun.

Now, I personally am an atheist; the fact of the world are incapable by definition of contradicting my ideology.

The theist has only two choices: He can interpret his religious beliefs according to scientific truth, or he can reject the validity of scientific truth. There’s no rational middle way.

But rejecting scientific truth carries a high price if you wish to maintain your own rational consistency. The methodology of science is the exact same methodology we use to construct our ordinary notions about reality. If you reject science, if you do so consistently, you must come to the conclusion that it is equally (if not more) plausible to believe that a God will magically levitate your cornflakes to your mouth as it is to believe that you must use a spoon. You might as well drive with your eyes closed as open. You can’t even know if you can read your scripture correctly.

Of course, you could completely reject rational consistency. Your views on reality could become a giant collection of special pleadings: Your senses are correct when it suits you, they are incorrect in this way and that when it doesn’t.

Furthermore, if you reject science, you must explain why so many scientists, many of them Christians and members of other religions, have been so thoroughly and completely fooled. And not just scientists, but everyone who believes in a rational, consistent reality about which we can know things through observation. Only a being with the powers of a God could so thoroughly fool everyone like that. We must conclude that “general” revelation of the world contradicts “special” revelation of scripture.

We can then choose only three possible theological interpretations: It is “good” for a God to fool us, God is evil, or there are more than one God, at least one of them intent on fooling us. Now again, I’m an atheist. From an objective standpoint, I don’t find any of those theological positions any more objectionable than the canonical Catholic theology that scientific truth merely entails a metaphorical interpretation of some scripture. But I suspect that most theists who appear to reject science would not find any of these options palatable.

Like I said, you’re free to reject rational consistency. It’s your life, not mine. However, if you implicitly reject rationality, don’t expect me to consider your arguments rationally.

*The archeological evidence strongly suggests the Jews were indigenous to Caanan.

 

[steveandersen]

abcdefg:

Both human and fish survive now. and human has aspect superior to fish. if human wish fish be extincted, I don’t doubt fish can be extincted. If fish want humans be extincted, this no where going to happen.

I won’t begin to list the problems with this

abcdefg:

Jews almost extincted in WW2 as they can’t fit the environment. according to ET, they’re inferior.

what sort of concept of evolution do you have
No wonder you don’t like it

Why does this eugenics and genocide bugaboo keep raising its ugly head as if it had anything at all to do with science?
That is as off base as someone blaming the Church for burning witches at the stake

How can the conditions in Europe in the 40s be in any way considered “natural” selection

The many parts of the world had race-based chattel slavery based on supposed group inferiorities long before Darwin showed up; Humans don’t need technology to do evil. They got into all sorts of mischief with sticks and stones.

 

[steveandersen]

6) How to interpret Gen 5:5

Even if one interprets it not literally, it has to correspond to some real event. a life span of 930 years is far longer than that of apes and men we have ever known

It is fairly easy.
While the maximum expected lifespan has pretty much stayed the same, until recently the average lifespan was very low. The bulk of the population throughout most of human history has been children or young adults. So anyone who made it to his 3 score and 10 was older than dirt in the eyes of everyone else. And those are the people who eventually wrote down the story.

I remember back in grade school I thought my teachers were so old when in retrospect they were probably only in their mid 20’s. Imagine trying to explain to a child who hasn’t seen anyone over 30 what it was like to see your great grandfather alive. “He was eleventy million years old!”

(One of my favorite lines from The Lion in Winter; “I’m the oldest man I know. I’m 50 now, I’ve even got 10 years on the Pope.”)

Once again we are not literalists
Why not interpret Gen 5:5 as “he was very old when he died”?

 

[A2SciTeach]

Sorry to jump in here - just want to give a really good link for people not technically up on the theory - I teach evolution in a public school - no debate, just the factual evidence to support the theory.

(One cannont believe in the theory of evolution - theories in science are accepted, not believed in).

Anyhow, this link is a great one for the general public and lays out the evidence and history of the theory of evolution in an elegant way.

evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[abcdefg]

steveandersen:

It is fairly easy.
While the maximum expected lifespan has pretty much stayed the same, until recently the average lifespan was very low. The bulk of the population throughout most of human history has been children or young adults. So anyone who made it to his 3 score and 10 was older than dirt in the eyes of everyone else. And those are the people who eventually wrote down the story.

I remember back in grade school I thought my teachers were so old when in retrospect they were probably only in their mid 20’s. Imagine trying to explain to a child who hasn’t seen anyone over 30 what it was like to see your great grandfather alive. “He was eleventy million years old!”

(One of my favorite lines from The Lion in Winter; “I’m the oldest man I know. I’m 50 now, I’ve even got 10 years on the Pope.”)

Once again we are not literalists
Why not interpret Gen 5:5 as “he was very old when he died”?

Then how to interpret Moses when scripture said he died at 120 years. suppose Adam lived for 100 years, then proportionally moses died at 13 years old?

 

[wildleafblower]

Jason Meyers:

Sorry, I decided not to reply to the thread as it was quite off topic for the thread, so I just sent it via private message. I’m more than happy to talk about research, biology, etc., but I hate to see threads ending up wildly off topic. Especially when the interesting discussion gets swamped out… That said, I’m all for interesting discussion of science and theology!
JRM

Hi Jason,

Yes, a person can begin to think their paddling through dark, murky waters. Unfortunately, a few people aren’t using simple self-management tools to achieve and maintain control.

I was extremely fasinated by your research to ‘uncover fundamental and universal properties of neural stem cells in humans’. It’s beautifully mind boggling to think that a fish could play an important role in saving the eyesight of a human being! Wow! I know I’d love to discuss it on a new thread as would other members. What say you? Would you mind starting a new thread?

After assessing the data provided on the website you kindly provided me, the three questions Alec asked of you would be in my opinion YES, YES, YES. I’m not a scientist, but I’m curious to know if I’m correct? It’s extremely important for me to know if I correctly understood what you provided me and processed that information correctly. I hope I haven’t stepped on your toes by asking.

Alec wrote: “I am particularly interested in the work in your lab on the role of Mueller glial cells (from the lab website). I understand the role of the Notch signalling pathway in cell to cell signalling and cell differentaition, but I don’t understand the precise hypothesis you guys are working on. Is it that Notch signalling regulates the Mueller cells to develop as glial cells rather than neurons so that if the Notch pathway is activated in teleosts then retinal regeneration is blocked? - the idea then being that down-regulation of Notch could lead to retinal regeneration from Mueller cells? Sorry if this is complete garbage - have I understood anything at all?”

Thank you both for helping me. I LOVE SCIENCE AND trains! Time to catch another train.

 

[steveandersen]

abcdefg:

Then how to interpret Moses when scripture said he died at 120 years. suppose Adam lived for 100 years, then proportionally moses died at 13 years old?

if you could show that the Bible always uses rules of strict ratios and proportionalites maybe…but I doubt it.

why wouldn’t it also mean that Moses was “very old when he died” but just not as old as Adam?

 

[abcdefg]

steveandersen:

if you could show that the Bible always uses rules of strict ratios and proportionalites maybe…but I doubt it.

why wouldn’t it also mean that Moses was “very old when he died” but just not as old as Adam?

Why Bible should use floating ratio to create misinterpretation.

why wouldn’t it also mean that Moses was “very young when he died” much younger than Adam?

 

[wildleafblower]

PLP:

Science in general argues against a literal interpretation of the Bible, indeed of every ancient scripture.

The Earth was not created in six days ca. 6,000 years ago. God did not actually make human beings by scooping mud and breathing into it. The Sun does not circle around the Earth; God did not in fact make the sun stand still for Joshua’s benefit. No matter how high one climbs, one cannot see the four corners of the Earth. There was no global flood. The Jews were never in captivity in Egypt, they did not spend 40 years in the Sinai desert, and they did not invade Caanan*.

The observable universe is ~13.7 billion years old. The Earth is ~4 billion years old. Life has existed on Earth for 2-3 billion years. The Earth is round and orbits the sun.

Now, I personally am an atheist; the fact of the world are incapable by definition of contradicting my ideology.

1. The theist has only two choices: He can interpret his religious beliefs according to scientific truth, or he can reject the validity of scientific truth. There’s no rational middle way.

But rejecting scientific truth carries a high price if you wish to maintain your own rational consistency. The methodology of science is the exact same methodology we use to construct our ordinary notions about reality. If you reject science, if you do so consistently, you must come to the conclusion that it is equally (if not more) plausible to believe that a God will magically levitate your cornflakes to your mouth as it is to believe that you must use a spoon. You might as well drive with your eyes closed as open. You can’t even know if you can read your scripture correctly.

Of course, you could completely reject rational consistency. Your views on reality could become a giant collection of special pleadings: Your 2) senses are correct when it suits you, they are incorrect in this way and that when it doesn’t.

Furthermore, if you reject science, you must explain why so many scientists, many of them Christians and members of other religions, have been so thoroughly and completely fooled. And not just scientists, but 3) everyone who believes in a rational, consistent reality about which we can know things through observation. Only a being with the powers of a God could so thoroughly fool everyone like that. We must conclude that “general” revelation of the world contradicts “special” revelation of scripture.

We can then choose only three possible theological interpretations: It is “good” for a God to fool us, God is evil, or there are more than one God, at least one of them intent on fooling us. 4) Now again, I’m an atheist. From an objective standpoint, I don’t find any of those theological positions any more objectionable than the canonical Catholic theology that scientific truth merely entails a metaphorical interpretation of some scripture. But I suspect that most theists who appear to reject science would not find any of these options palatable.

Like I said, you’re free to reject rational consistency. It’s your life, not mine. However, if you implicitly reject rationality, don’t expect me to consider your arguments rationally.

*The archeological evidence strongly suggests the Jews were indigenous to Caanan.

Hi PLP,

You’ve presented a comprehensive post that strengthens your agruments that have served me well. Thank you. I’ve kept the written content within its entirety to avoid quote mining while highlighting and numbering segments therein that I wish to address since they merit a response.

1 & 4) I’m thrilled you mention ‘theist(s)’. A must read for Catholics [Yo, PHIL read this! hint, hint. Wedpedikia!]** A Christian Reflection on New Age** (hoopla) the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL is opposed to:

a.) Monism: the metaphysical belief that differences between beings are illusory. There is only one universal being, of which every thing and every person is a part. Inasmuch as New Age monism includes the idea that reality is fundamentally spiritual, it is a contemporary form of pantheism (sometimes explicitly a rejection of materialism, particularly Marxism). Its claim to resolve all dualism leaves no room for a transcendent God, so everything is God. A further problem arises for Christianity when the question of the origin of evil is raised. C.G. Jung saw evil as the “shadow side” of the God who, in classical theism, is all goodness.
(continued)

 

[wildleafblower]

b.) "Pantheism: (Greek pan = everything and theos = God) the belief that everything is God or, sometimes, that everything is in God and God is in everything (panentheism). Every element of the universe is divine, and the divinity is equally present in everything. There is no space in this view for God as a distinct being in the sense of classical theism.

c.) While much of New Age is a reaction to contemporary culture, there are many ways in which it is that culture’s child. The Renaissance and the Reformation have shaped the modern western individual, who is not weighed down by external burdens like merely extrinsic authority and tradition; people feel the need to “belong” to institutions less and less (and yet loneliness is very much a scourge of modern life), and are not inclined to rank “official” judgements above their own. With this cult of humanity, religion is internalised in a way which prepares the ground for a celebration of the sacredness of the self. This is why New Age shares many of the values espoused by enterprise culture and the “prosperity Gospel” (of which more will be said later: section 2.4), and also by the consumer culture, whose influence is clear from the rapidly-growing numbers of people who claim that it is possible to blend Christianity and New Age, by taking what strikes them as the best of both.(2) It is worth remembering that deviations within Christianity have also gone beyond traditional theism in accepting a unilateral turn to self, and this would encourage such a blending of approaches. The important thing to note is that God is reduced in certain New Age practices so as furthering the advancement of the individual."

vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=4961&query=Theism&SCOPE=EnglishUI&hiword=Theism%20

2 & 3) Do you consider ‘intuition’ to be a sense or part of a person’s ‘senses’? Please elaborate further on sense (mental) vs ‘senses’ that interplay with intuition, instinct, rationality and the lack there of? And last but not least, love and emotional wellness?. Pray tell

Thank you, PLP, for a positive exchange.

 

[steveandersen]

abcdefg:

Why Bible should use floating ratio to create misinterpretation.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say

abcdefg:

why wouldn’t it also mean that Moses was “very young when he died” much younger than Adam?

Because “younger than” and “young” do not mean the same thing

There are many points to the story, among them are
(1) That Adam had a preternatural life span as a reflection of the human condition prior to the Fall
(2) That Adam lived with his descendants for X numbers of years each so that the story is “straight from the horse mouth” so to speak and not a matter of “I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend etc”
(3) Moses lived a long time…which is not only important because age signifyes wisdom and authority and (more importantly) that due to his disobedience Moses had to lived through the entire 40 years wandering.

Whether these people lived to be exactly 70, 120, 930, or 929.5 is not important to the story. that they were very old is

Don’t lose the forest for the trees, man. What are you going to suggest next? That the story of Noah is about a boat ride with animals?

 

[thistle]

Oh no!! Don’t get abcdefg started on these animals again!!