[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[lordkalvan]

What part (if any) of the bible do you find trustworthy?

I have not responded to the remainder of your entirely reasonable and, from your point of view, reasoned post because I understand fully where you are coming from and why. I admire your faith and conviction, even though I disagree with much of what you say.

As to your question, my position is one of certainty that the Bible is not the unvarnished word of God, nor that the route to God, if God exists, lies along only one path and that only one religion - or one sect within any one religion - can claim to have found the one true path. Such a claim has more to do with the arrogance of (mostly) men and matters of secular power and influence.

I believe the Old Testament at least is the imperfect work of imperfect human beings and can be understood as such by anyone approaching it with an open mind and a degree of critical reasoning. The evidence against a literal interpretation of the OT is overwhelming, the evidence to support it largely a void of silence. I believe that if God gave us intelligence and reasoning, it was for a purpose and that purpose is not to ignore the evidence that science can help us uncover and better understand.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I appreciate your straigthforwardness.

 

[John]

The evidence against a literal interpretation of the OT is overwhelming

On the contrary my friend. Its because of all the evidence that my faith is so strong.

 

[jmm9683]

I do not prefer treatments from medical science. I've had them (but not for a very long time, and never again). I rely on God. Should I contract a disease that threatens my life, I will follow no other course of action. God is able to sustain me. If He does not, then so be it. I trust Him, because He is trustworthy. I have seen Him honor that trust. Repeatedly.

All I can say is I hope you don't have kids, because refusing them medical treatment is utterly wrong. And I would actually go as far as to say that it would be wrong for you to intentionally deny medical help for yourself. That's a selfish thing to do if you take into perspective how your friends, family, kids, etc. would most likely feel about it. It's kinda along the same lines as committing suicide but not as abrupt or extreme.

 

[jmm9683]

The evidence against a literal interpretation of the OT is overwhelming

On the contrary my friend. Its because of all the evidence that my faith is so strong.

Oh please, listening to Kent Hovind and VenomFangX doesn't count as evidence. Get back to me when creationism becomes and established scientific theory.

 

[John]

The only reason its not established, is because people hate it so dearly because it invokes a God who will one day judge them.

 

[jmm9683]

The only reason its not established, is because people hate it so dearly because it invokes a God who will one day judge them.

Yeah, yeah save it. We've all heard the excuses before. It's not science because it's not falsifiable, makes no testable predictions, and has no application. It's not science for the same reasons as astrology, faith healing, telepathy, etc.

 

[Free]

nor that the route to God, if God exists, lies along only one path and that only one religion - or one sect within any one religion - can claim to have found the one true path.

On what rational basis do you believe this?

The evidence against a literal interpretation of the OT is overwhelming, the evidence to support it largely a void of silence.

Please show at least some of this "overwhelming" evidence. Silence an argument does not make.

 

[lordkalvan]

nor that the route to God, if God exists, lies along only one path and that only one religion - or one sect within any one religion - can claim to have found the one true path.

On what rational basis do you believe this?

Because all religions are created by men. If there is a God, I have to believe God is reasonable, just, loving and, above all, fair. A fair God would not make it difficult (or even impossible) for people to find a way to revelation and salvation. From this point of view I have no trouble reasoning that God's revelation comes in many forms.
[quote:3ccb8]

The evidence against a literal interpretation of the OT is overwhelming, the evidence to support it largely a void of silence.

Please show at least some of this "overwhelming" evidence. Silence an argument does not make.

[/quote:3ccb8]
I rather think that the onus is upon you to provide evidence that a literal interpretation of the OT is correct. However, leaving details to one side for the moment, to demonstrate that the Earth and Universe are much older than 6-10k years based on eccentric, contrived calculations from the OT, I would point to:

• various measurements of the age of the Universe, using independent methods, that put that age in the billions of years;
• the RM dating metrics that return ages for various objects and artefacts that, depending on the metric used, range in ages from thousands of years to billions of years older than YEC estimates for the age of creation based on OT literalism;
• evidence from ice cores and marine coral growth that indicate processes consuming tens and hundreds of thousands of years;
• the calibration of carbon-14 dating curves with those from dendrochronology, ice cores and marine coral growth than indicates they are consilient with each other;
• stratigraphic techniques used by archaeologists that date artefacts to well before YEC estimates for the age of humanity based on OT literalism;
• archaeological research which indicates that many cultures existed before, during and after the time of the supposed global Flood of Noah without being affected by it;
• the fossil record;
• evidence from molecular biology, phylogenetics and population genetics supporting evolutionary theory;
• geological processes that take tens of thousands or millions of years to occur;
evidence of multiple ice ages.

Will this do?

 

[Rick W]

Every time a change occurs, that is a different organism. We have seen organisms evolve to the point where they cannot produce fertile offspring with the original species - the definition of speciation. Why, if you believe in small changes, are you unable to believe that these small changes will eventually compound and represent vast differences? I ask again - what biological mechanism prevents the compounding of those small changes into an evolution of one species to another?

"Why, if you believe in small changes, are you unable to believe that these small changes will eventually compound and represent vast differences?"

These changes may benefit the organism in survivability which I believe can and does occur.

"what biological mechanism prevents the compounding of those small changes into an evolution of one species to another?"

What documented examples do you have that shows a mutation actually adds to an organism's original function? If evolution is such a dominant mechanism then there should be little trouble in finding these examples of mutations adding information to DNA that results in a protein that does indeed add functionality. Again, there are mutations that contribute to survivability, beneficial in that respect yes, but these are usually deletions within the gene and not a mutation that adds anything to the original.
Has evolution stopped or rather slowed down to such a point that mutations that add functionality can no longer be found? For if evolution continues as the theory suggests then examples of mutations adding functionality, or even information to the original DNA structure, should be quite easy to find and present. And there should be many such examples.

Information = That which is within the DNA that produces a resultant protein.

I hope we don't have to debate the word "information". I honestly believe we all know what I'm talking about.

 

[Rick W]

BTW,
I've searched Talk Origins for some of these examples but for the most part I found only things on duplication and mutations that enhance survivability. There was one promising mutation, Apolipoprotein AI, that was cited, one concerning cholesterol. But it turned out to be a deletion mutation that altered the gene to help reduce cholesterol. And there were drugs found to help in the mutation's production.

 

[Snidey]

Every time a change occurs, that is a different organism. We have seen organisms evolve to the point where they cannot produce fertile offspring with the original species - the definition of speciation. Why, if you believe in small changes, are you unable to believe that these small changes will eventually compound and represent vast differences? I ask again - what biological mechanism prevents the compounding of those small changes into an evolution of one species to another?

"Why, if you believe in small changes, are you unable to believe that these small changes will eventually compound and represent vast differences?"

These changes may benefit the organism in survivability which I believe can and does occur.

"what biological mechanism prevents the compounding of those small changes into an evolution of one species to another?"

What documented examples do you have that shows a mutation actually adds to an organism's original function? If evolution is such a dominant mechanism then there should be little trouble in finding these examples of mutations adding information to DNA that results in a protein that does indeed add functionality. Again, there are mutations that contribute to survivability, beneficial in that respect yes, but these are usually deletions within the gene and not a mutation that adds anything to the original.
Has evolution stopped or rather slowed down to such a point that mutations that add functionality can no longer be found? For if evolution continues as the theory suggests then examples of mutations adding functionality, or even information to the original DNA structure, should be quite easy to find and present. And there should be many such examples.

Information = That which is within the DNA that produces a resultant protein.

I hope we don't have to debate the word "information". I honestly believe we all know what I'm talking about.

Interesting that you'd add that qualifier at the end, because that is a very odd definition of "information" indeed. All that is required for new information to be added is a duplicated gene, and a mutation in the duplicated segment. This is the definition of new genetic information. Your follow up post, no offense, makes you seem similarly unaware of what adding information entails, as deletions can indeed result in a net gain in information. An easy example here is hair color. If a population is coded for brown hair, and a mutation results in the pigment producing gene wherein you lose all hair color, you now have blonde hair. The population has thusly experienced a net gain in genetic information despite the fact that all that occurred within the individual was a "loss" and the genes for both brown and blonde hair now exist. An additional type of organism can be formed.

 

[Rick W]

Net gain in the benefit of survivability doesn't translate into an example of mutations adding anything to the original to get from say a fin to a foot. All I'm asking is for examples of mutations that have added to the complexity of the original that should be plentiful anywhere you look for the theory holds that all things evolved and are evolving.

 

[BobRyan]

You seem determined to ignore every argument I have made to show that your interpretation of Exodus and its relationship to Genesis is disputed, not just by agnostics, atheists and 'Darwinist-Christians', but also by biblical scholars with no evolutionary axe to grind - unless you believe that Talmudic Rabbis and Moses Maimonides had a 'Darwinist' agenda underlying their understanding of OT text.

1. I have already conceded that even the ORTHODOX (i.e most strict of the Jewish sects) have caved in to Darwinian doctrine.

No, you claimed that Orthodox Rabbis who had 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine' supported your exegesis of Exodus 20.

No -- here again I see that we have "failure to communicate".

The argument is that Orthodox Rabbis WHO DO teach Darwinism -- are ALSO the same group that admit from a linguistic POV that the term YOM used in Exodus 20:8-11 is provided in a context meaning 24 hour -- literal day JUST LIKE we see Jews today observing that SAME 7 day cycle.

I also argue that they readily place tradition HIGHER than the text of scripture so it does not matter to them that the text itself is locked-in to a 24 hour time line.

We keep coming back to these two points as if they were never stated. I find that confusing.

And again, are you suggesting that biblical scholars of Talmudic times and the Middle Ages, who as I have shown disagree with the literal days of Genesis interpretation that you cling to, 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine'? Your argument is absurd.

1. Nobody has been able to make the case that Darwinism was taught in the dark ages -- did you do it?? If so I missed it.

2. The challenge was to "exegete Exodus 20:8-11" in your reponse above you appear to "admit" that not only did you refuse to do it -- but you gave no source at all that attempted to exegete Exodus 20:8-11...

Is this your way of agreeing with me on Exodus 20... to simply jump into Genesis 1 "instead"??

Bob said

[quote:1c6c1]2. I have asked that you show "actual exegesis" of the Exodus 20:8-11 takes so IT can be "seen" to make your case... you steadfastly refuse to do that -- preferring to "talk around that point" instead.

L.K. said
You make some assumptions here. You assume that exegesis provides a value-free tool for determining absolute meaning; I have explained fully and with reasons why I believe this is not so.

Did you SHOW exegesis failing? Did you provide anything other than "assertion upon assertion" that the objectivity in the Exegetical method does not work?

Did you even show one of your "sources" condemning Exegesis?

In other words -- did you provide actual evidence? Facts?

If so... I missed it.

You also assume that I think your exegesis of Exodus 20 is absolutely wrong; I do not, I only believe that it is not persuasive and that other understandings of biblical text can be derived by biblical scholars whose knowledge and learning is at least the equal of yours

If you have someone doing a sound exegetical presention of Exodus 20 SHOWING that we are free to bend the text on the whim of darwminism REDFINING the term for DAy -- in MID-Sentence as Darwinism "so desperately needs" -- then show it.

So far you have given no source at all dealing with the text of Exodus 20:8-11 with anything close to "exegetical objectivey" (an objectivity that you condemn yet provide no alternative for).

, as I have demonstrated. Why should I believe your conclusions over and above theirs?

Well -- #1 -- because I SHOW in vastly superior form of argument that EVEN the OPPOSING side agrees with me on the exegetcially derived MEANING for "yom" in Exodus 20:8-11 "in Context" and so far all you (and all your sources so far) have done is avoid Exodus 20:8-11 while you claim to have solved the problem.

Kind of like you condemn the objectivity of the exegetical method then offer nothing in it's place as a superior method of interpretation.

Bob said

3. You also provide no example of anyone ELSE exegeting Exodus 20:8-11 showing THE TEXT to conform to the usage you need to make of it. All you show is that there are those who agree with your need to spin it -- but so far no source at all showing your argument IN the Text of EXODUS 20 (from either you or any of your sources showing that the TEXT was intented to be bent in such a darwinist fashion).

L.K
I make no usage of Exodus 2; I only contest your certainty about it.

[/quote:1c6c1]

Indeed - you have avoided Exodus 20:8-11 just like Exodus 2 (though I have never pointed to your argument being stuck in Exodus 2... only Exodus 20).

Why do you keep avoiding the text - quoted time after time -- SHOWN to contradict your darwinism ... All you do is "claim" that you coulda solved the problem in Exodus 20 if only you had a source that would do it for you... and even then you give no source at all able to do it.

Was I supposed to "not notice"??

Your solution to the glaringly obvious problem that you have in Exodus 20 is of the following form.

1. Do not quote Exodus 20
2. Do not read it and deal with what it says
3. Do not provide any source that references it and SHOWS how Darwinism survives it.
4. Condemn the objectivity found in Exegesis.
5. Appeal to sources commenting on everything BUT Exodus 20 to make your case about Ex 20.

Again -- was I "not supposed to notice"?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

You claim that "you need" the days of Exodus 20 to "not be literal" and that you "need" the reference to days in Exodus 20 to "echo metaphorical days" mid-sentence between days for creation vs days for the camp of Israel at sinai -- so that whenver darwinism "needs" the days not to be literal well then "presto!" they are not.

But though you state what you NEED very well - you never once make any attempt to show In THE TEXT that the author provided any evidence to his readers that such bending and wrenching of the text was 'intended' when he wrote it.

All you have done is state darwinism's "need" to abuse the text in that way.

Which was my point all along.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have said over and over again that the Bible - and we are talking specifically about the OT here - can be divinely inspired, but that the interpretation of that divine inspiration is carried out by imperfect human beings and written down only thousands of years after the events it purports to be recounting. For these reasons alone, I doubt that the text of the OT is inerrant or free of ambiguities, contradictions and stuff that is just made up.

It is also entirely possible to argue that the ID 'decision' occurred at the point of the Universe's creation and that everything subsequent to that has evolved from that initial act of divine genius.

The argument against ID is "distinctively atheist" because it denys what "even the pagans can see clearly" IN nature.

'Looks as if it was designed' is not evidence for 'really was designed'. In this sense ID is no more than the God-of-the-gaps argument writ anew.

"Looks as if designed" is "sustained design" when it can be shown that not ONLY "can rocks NOT do this given enough time mass and energy... neither can YOU do it without technology to aid you and design to cause it".

And in the case of the "Applied chemistry" example of DNA mRNA protein synthesis we have "neither can YOU do this EVEN WITH all the technology you can muster".

I.e. "glaringly obvious design" in the form of "applied chemistry".

So not only do we have you "assuming the point of your argument" in Exodus 20 and resisting all attempts to apply objective methods to your wrenching of the text.

We ALSO see in your argument above the effort to "confine god to a tiny box even atheists would allow him to live in" -- i.e. "A thought of design just before the big bang". And you show that you "need" to view the TEXT of scripture as corrupt to get to your conclusion (as you admit in the quote above).

So I undertand why atheists and even agnostics are here on this thread making their case -- but the "rest" are making self-conflicted arguments.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

......it is doubtful that very many of Moses' readers were "Darwinists".

It is even more doubtful, in a pre-literate society, if very many individuals could read the OT at all. Most of the audience would understand interpretations of text provided by sages, scholars and priests.

Hint: The 5 books of Moses are written at the time of Israel in the dessert for 40 years.

Let's go back to step 1 in Exegesis.

The intent of the author as his words are read by his primary intended reader.

You appear in a "backhanded dragging feet" kinda way to admit that neither Moses NOR his readers were thinking "Darwinism" as they all saw the words

"SIX DAYS you shall labor... FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE".

Is this the part where you tell us that paying attention to this "inconvenient detail" is a bad idea?

so that leads to the obvious question -- how would a "non-Darwinist" read this text?

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

L.K.
Why would a 'non-Darwinist' necessarily interpret it differently from a 'Darwinist'?

The non-Darwinist would have no "reason to wrench the texT" as you claim you need to do.


Bob

 

[Snidey]

Net gain in the benefit of survivability doesn't translate into an example of mutations adding anything to the original to get from say a fin to a foot. All I'm asking is for examples of mutations that have added to the complexity of the original that should be plentiful anywhere you look for the theory holds that all things evolved and are evolving.

Examples of mutations that add to the complexity of the individual? They ALL do, definitionally. ~150 mutations per human being means we are evolving.

 

[BobRyan]

Damaging mutations are not a sign of "evolving forward" -- or reaching some higher level of existence.

Roaches still roaches... sharks still sharks... Horseshoe crab still horseshow crab and in fact Coelacanth still Coelacanth

Coelacanth 410 Million years
Horseshoe Crab – 450 Million years
Cockroach – 350 Million years
crocodile 200 million years ago
Australian and African lungfish 400 Million years ago


What a wonderful argument for the resiliance of the species despite massive numbers of minor damaging mutations!

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Mutations are not all damaging, I may be mistaken but I believe I went over this in this very thread.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Damaging mutations are not a sign of "evolving forward" -- or reaching some higher level of existence.

Roaches still roaches... sharks still sharks... Hoseshoe crab still horseshow crab and in fact Coelacanth still Coelacanth

What a wonderful argument for the resiliance of the species despite massive numbers of minor damaging mutations!

Bob

Again, the majority of mutations are not harmful. They are neutral.

"Roaches still roaches... sharks still sharks... Hoseshoe crab still horseshow crab and in fact Coelacanth still Coelacanth"

The question is, can the horseshoe crab mate with its ancestor, who may have looked similar, and produce a fertile offspring.

In other words, is there a limit to these mutations that prevent just enough change to still allow offspring from 2 populations that are separated and not allow to share genes anymore. When YEC's find this magical barrier, ToE will be destroyed. Again, I won't hold my breath.

This Zebra is still a Zebra mess is just an ambiguous junk-science statement. The day a Zebra turns into a Roach or gives birth to a Dalmation, is the day all biological science goes out the window.