RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Ida not one of us
When anthropologists find fossils that “prove” evolution, it is always front page news. Then, when the findings are later overturned, the news is less publicized. Page 17 of Friday’s New York Times reports that “Fossil Skeleton Known as Ida is No Ancestor of Humans.”
Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and television documentary? A publicity blitz called it “the link” that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.
Experts protested that Ida was not even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.
In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.
“So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27 ESV)
back to top110 Comments to “Ida not one of us”
I had seen this news item, and had meant to post it as a comment on wmb.
A difference between science and religious belief. Although scientists don’t like to be shown they are wrong any more than any other group of human beings, scientists as a group move toward revising incorrect beliefs much more quickly than many other groups. Religious believers, however, stick to their long-spiked guns for thousands of years.
Report comment to moderator
One day every knee will bow to GOD, and know that HE and only HE is GOD – that HE created the universe and man, the very man who has tried for decades to prove they are something other than GOD’s created human, set apart.
Report comment to moderator
Wiping egg of face is not one thing evolutionists do well.
I always find it interesting how they find the link between a 3 million year old humanoide and a 1 million year old with one at +- 2 million years old.
Report comment to moderator
Roger,
Not one scientist can make a blade of grass, or understand where the wind comes from, but yet he believes he can tell us where we came from and who we are related to – all foolishness.
Report comment to moderator
#1 said “scientists as a group move toward revising incorrect beliefs much more quickly than many other groups. Religious believers, however, stick to their long-spiked guns for thousands of years.
Religious believers, however, stick to their long-spiked guns for thousands of years.”
When you believe in the Bible as God’s Word, there’s no need to change. Every new discovery by scientists shows man’s thinking to be wrong and God’s Word right.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria post 2,
but are we sure that HE did not do it with evolution?
Report comment to moderator
Awstar post 5,
even when the objective data shows that one is incorrect.
Report comment to moderator
Ah the courage to raise the great evolutionary wars in WMB again!
Based on past history, this may be a very very long thread.
Report comment to moderator
Scott Lamb,
and is the news media where typical scientific findings are reported and debated? It was my understanding that after the findings have been debated in the techical community and scientific journals, if it survives enough efforts to refute it, it becomes accepted science.
I dont think that the mainstream media are scientifc journals.
But then perhaps you are commenting not on science here, but on the fickleness and inability of th mainstream media to keep focus on a topic for an extnded period of time or to follow it in depth.
Perhaps like those media outlets which apparantly forgot to mention that Belmont Abbey college had apparently been providing the reproductive services as part of health insurance for 26 years and then had abruptly canceled them without consulting with their employees. And fuirther that Belmot Abbey College had apparently pursued law suits to establish its secularity so that they could claim government funding of various sorts.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #7
you said: “even when the objective data shows that one is incorrect”
Would you like to point to just one scientific discovery that contradicts the Bible?
Report comment to moderator
Arguablyh a more interesting example is the “hobbit” specimens found in isolated regions of Indonesia.
At this time the discoverers are arguing that ti si a unique homind from about 18,000 years ago, and those disagreeing are providing alternate arguments.
It is going back and forth and is apparenlty not yet resolved in the scientific community.
There is a nice discussion on this in Scientific American November 2009 page 66. For an excerpt see:
Excerpt form Scientific American Article
Report comment to moderator
awstar post 10,
but of coiurse first we must establish what we mean by contradicts the Bible.
So first, how do you interpret the Bible? Are you a strict literal interpretationalist? Rhe classic form is in the Chicago statement, but there are others:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
And your response?
Without clearly understanding what we mean by the Bible being correct, we cant make any argument regarding whether science disuptes the Bible or not.
Report comment to moderator
The scientists here didn’t revise incorrect beliefs; they revised incorrect conclusions because the facts did not support those conclusions.
I have no new “facts” about the resurrection so I don’t plan to revise my faith.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 13,
so you are being clear that your understanding of the resurreciton is based only your faith and not on objective fact?
That is an important and crtiical understanidng which is often lost in the discussions ins WMB, and I congratulate you for framing it so well.
Report comment to moderator
As far as I can see, the basic argument at worldmagblog in regard to evolution is: if it contradicts religious belief, it can’t be true.
Though there is some edgy sliding around on the issue in regard to the “old earth” and “young earth” creationists.
Declaring the Bible “inerrant” forces its defenders into a very tight jacket, similar to what is sometimes called a “straightjacket.”
Comment #2 seems to be “I know what the truth is by my religious belief; empiricism is irrelevant.”
Nevertheless, I suspect that most reading this would accept medical treatments such as heart transplants that are the products of extensive use of empiricism.
Report comment to moderator
So the experts already knew the connection wasn’t there, but some “publicity blitz” mischaracterized it, and that somehow is a blow to evolutionary theory?
Sorry, no. Evolution has been proved by a long chain of small discoveries and findings over the past 150 years, from many different fields of science. There is no one single “smoking gun” piece of evidence, but there is a large edifice of many strong bricks.
Report comment to moderator
#15 Random Noise As far as I can see, the basic argument at worldmagblog in regard to evolution is: if it contradicts religious belief, it can’t be true.
One could turn that around and say that the non-religious are forced to believe in the story of evolution because they have no alternative. Christians are free to accept the facts as they come.
The most fundamental tenet of Christianity is truth. Paul comes right out and admits that if our faith is not true, then it is meaningless. (1 Cor 15:14)
Cosmologists and bad scientists are reluctant to admit their underlying assumptions and overstep when they declare things to be true which haven’t been proven. They blindly cling to their ever-changing artificially constructed models of reality.
Christian thinkers press scientists to be honest about what they know and do not know. When they say the universe is 20 billion years old, they don’t really know. This is why they keep revising the numbers. When they say they have found a missing link, they don’t really know if the fossil is related to the former and later species.
One could list every underlying assumption of the evolutionary model and at each step of the way an honest scientist would have to admit he doesn’t really know. There is a disincentive to do so since admitting such things could be career ending as the documentary Expelled shows.
In this case, Ida was proclaimed to be another human link in the evolutionary model. Well, they were wrong. Once again, they didn’t really know what they were talking about. And miracle of miracles, they actually admitted it. Hallelujah!
Report comment to moderator
Undoubtedly, the debate still rages in most evolution vs theological debates, but the facts remain; there are remains of extinct ‘human-like’ creatures who roamed this earth 3+mya. Was it just an experiment gone wild? Did GOD build some weirdo’s that just didn’t suit Him? I mean, they are there! If GOD created life on this planet, He must have created these ‘proto-humans’, huh?
Has it ever occurred to anyone that ‘these’ were the ancestors of Cain’s wife, in the Bible? Obviously GOD fixed that ‘toe’ problem with ‘Ardi’; whatcha think? Don’t discount evolution on theological grounds, when GOD was the one making it all fit.
Report comment to moderator
First of all – you can’t prove history with science. You can show a possibility, assuming your assumptions are correct. But to prove that one possibility was the one that actually occurred, you would have to know all the other possibilities and prove that they didn’t happen. Otherwise you choose the one you think is most plausible. A matter of faith for the evolutionists as well.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: In this case, Ida was proclaimed to be another human link in the evolutionary model. Well, they were wrong. Once again, they didn’t really know what they were talking about. And miracle of miracles, they actually admitted it. Hallelujah!
Except as the article Mickey links says, the experts in the field never thought it was. Once again, the scientists are quite happy to have the real information get out and never were the ones spreading the mistaken impression.
So really, you’re calling it a “miracle of miracles” that the experts WHO NEVER DID BELIEVE THIS WAS A LINK are “admitting” it isn’t a link.
Report comment to moderator
Then we come to the point of the assumptions. To get millions of years evolutionists must project way into the past with assumptions – usually that things have always been the same. There is a Bible passage about that, is there not?
Oh yes.
2 Pet 3:3-4 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” ESV
of course they would use a different word instead of creation.
Report comment to moderator
It sounds like what some scientists and those who have reported on this in the past THOUGHT was evidence, really isn’t evidence at all. Nevertheless, I don’t expect them to change their conclusions. Sadly, evidence and conclusions often have little to do with each others in today’s secualrist agenda-driven halls of academia.
Report comment to moderator
#17
Christians are free to accept the facts as they come.
I doubt it.
In general, humans are full of error and we spend most of our time trying to justify, rationalize, and back up what we already want to believe.
However, it is my opinion that scientists are much more willing to adjust beliefs to facts than religious believers. I find it very difficult for me to imagine that I will come to accept that the “Garden of Eden” story is literally true, but trot out a few facts and I will give it a whirl.
On the other hand, most people here are Protestants, I think. How long did it take to switch from Catholicism to Protestantism?
How are theological arguments resolved except by quoting a book which pretty much has to be taken “on faith.”
I first started reading worldmagblog about five years ago. I haven’t kept the message, but fairly early in reading this web site, someone told me that most scientific progress had come about because of the work of Christians. At the time, I regarded that as an amazing assertion. My amazement has not diminished.
Report comment to moderator
Shouldn’t “bok” be “book” in the original post?
Report comment to moderator
About 30 years ago my brother went spelunking with another man who had an exotic cat as a pet. Well it died and he froze it. A few months later he decided to test the dating data from the Smithsonian so he took a piece of the meat, packed it in ice, and sent it to them with a story about spelunking in an ice cave. He didn’t actually say that he found the specimen in the cave but didn’t want to tell them that he knew how old it really was. The age came back as a few hundred years old.
A few months later he repeated the process and this time the age came back as several thousand years old. (Actually I believe that date ranges were more specific but in thirty years I’ve forgotten the exact ages that were given.)
He said nothing, but a few months later sent a third sample to the Smithsonian. This time they called him on the phone, asking where he got the sample because it was the oldest sample of this species ever found. Well, he wouldn’t lie to them, so he told them the truth. Instead of admitting that their lab must have made some mistakes (or the dating method was faulty) they accused him of messing with them.
Needless to say, I don’t take much stock in the dates that evolutionists give. Most of the time there is really no way to verify the dates they give you.
Report comment to moderator
As is always the case in threads about this topic, most of the Creationists seem to think that the “proof” of evolution is found just a small number of a “a-ha!” examples and if they prove to be mistakes (or hoaxes, frauds, etc.) the whole enterprise collapses.
It’s this kind of deep-seated ignorance that makes the conversation really not worth the trouble. There have been literally thousands of discoveries that have added more and more weight to the idea of evolution — coming from biology but also astronomy, geology, physics and other fields — that it has long ago become proven fact.
That is, to be as clear as I can, NOT because of any one or two or three fossils, but because of the accumulated weight of 150 years of scientific inquiry.
If your Christian faith is so simplistic and weak that evolution threatens it, then it deserves to be threatened. Any religious belief that can’t accommodate all of reality should be jettisoned immediately.
For Christians who are not threatened by it, Michael Dowd’s “Thank God For Evolution” and “The Genesis Enigma: Why The Bible is Scientificially Accurate” by Andrew Parker are good reads.
Report comment to moderator
And these ‘unbiased’ scientists throw out the data that doesn’t match their evolutionary theory. Just like the Smithsonian did with their data I mentioned about the exotic cat. There was no evidence that they challenged their dating method.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
Christianity can “accommodate” all of reality. That’s why it amuses some of us when unbelievers try so hard to disprove it that they end up looking ridiculous . . . repeatedly.
And yes, BTW, evolution does “threaten” Christianity. I put “threaten” in quotes because the Bible will stand against any foe. But if evolution really were true, the Bible couldn’t stand. (If God isn’t our Creator, he’s a liar, and he has no right to set standards for our behavior, and without sin we don’t need a Saviour.) But the Bible holds together as one complete truth, so bits and pieces of scientific guesses aren’t about to knock it down.
Report comment to moderator
Random, #1,
I think you did post this story as a comment a few days ago.
Report comment to moderator
#29
Well, there you go. I am having more and more “senior moments.”
Well, certainly I am certainly wasting my time in these discussions, but it certainly keeps many of you busy posting what you consider profound and irrefutable statements, where as you might be causing some real mischief somewhere else.
Certainly, after reading a few days of worldmagblog, I wonder how humans have ever reached what pathetic levels and knowledge we actually do have at our hands to use.
I’ve worked in public education, so I know it doesn’t work very well. And I support people being allowed to do home schooling as a basic civil right. But there’s a cost to everything. If we allow people to own guns (as I think we should) quite a few people will kill themselves and each other–it’s a cost of freedom.
If we allow homeschooling and the creationist indoctrination that comes with it, we make the world safe for ignorance and stupidity, not that those characteristics have ever been in much danger of going extinct.
#26 (as usual from Steve) is an excellent comment.
Report comment to moderator
“If we allow homeschooling and the creationist indoctrination that comes with it”
Are all homeschoolers creationists, or are all creationists homeschoolers? That’s a pretty broad-brush statement Random. I too, am in the education field. Creationism isn’t taught in public school as a normal part of the curriculum. But, in saying that, sometimes the word GOD does come up. I don’t care what flavor or stripe a kid is, The word GOD; has it’s meaning; even to an atheist. . . I don’t knock homeschooling; it’s the practical alternative to the mayhem that occurs in public schools. It even boils down to a ‘either-or’ educational environment. If you want your kid to grow up ‘publicly’, bereft of possibly learning any hope of moral compass, or compassion, by all means, keep them in public school.
If the ‘drop-out’ rate of high-school is of any consequence, public education doesn’t do much for your “making the world safe for ignorance and stupidity”, does it?
Report comment to moderator
If evolution isn’t true then God went to allot of trouble to make his world look like it was. It would be so much easier to believe in God if he had simply designed all creatures with random body plans and metabolisms for every creature, instead of coming up with a few body plans and repeating them over and over with variations such that they appear to share common ancestors; like fish or mammals or insects. Why in the world would God imbue all his creatures with genetics that are tailor made to be acted upon by natural selection unless he wanted to deceive us into believing in evolution? Why would he create an earth packed with fossils that show a history of evolution spanning hundreds of millions of years, and filled with transitionary forms like Archaeopteryx and primitive hominids, unless he wanted to turn people away from his word and be damned? Why would god be so cruel as to create a world designed to trick its inhabitants into hell, and why would anybody worship him?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks to CherylD for reminding me why this discussion just isn’t worth the bother. Be well. I bow out of this one.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
Evolution more than threatens Christianity, it virtually negates it. If evolution is true, there was no Adam and Eve, an therefore no original sin, no need for redemption, and no Jesus. Evolution, more than any other scientific theory reveals the Bible to be the absurd fairy tale that it is.
That’s why Christians refuse to believe evolution despite the absolutely overwhelming evidence. The half-baked “scientific” criticism of evolution certainly isn’t designed to affect the reasoned person who understands and accepts evolution; it’s to discredit the theory in the eyes of those who are ignorant of the theories immense explanatory power and utility, and keep their minds shackled to a two thousand year old fairy-tail.
Report comment to moderator
Evolution threatens no one. Many a Christian has opened his eyes to the fact that creationism is not a plethora of ‘poof’ trees, animals and fish. Evolution is just an English word to explain the process of creating one form, to utilize its surroundings and change to accommodate another set of circumstances. We are a culmination of millions of years of perfection. Now, as ‘modern’ as we say we are, we are still changing to an even better example of perfection. I am sure when GOD first stirred His formula for vertebrates, at that moment, it was the ‘perfection’ for the moment. So, evolution doesn’t negate Christianity; it supplants it! Some still have a way to go. Christianity is just one of the next steps to perfection. It’s like getting a merit badge; some just won’t work for it.
By the way, Christianity is not a religion, it’s a way of life.
Report comment to moderator
#23 Random Noise “I doubt it.”
Your faith in a nutshell.
Report comment to moderator
My brother, a secular person, home-schooled his children. I have known other secular people who have home-schooled their children. I think it is fairly obvious, however, that the majority of people who home-school are conservative Christians, and part of their motivation for so doing is to impose their world view on their children.
As I’ve said, our children are our property, and short of child abuse we should have the right to do with them as we please. I support your right to indoctrinate your child with creationism and belief in what I think is a myth, and homo-hysteria and so on.
I expect you to do the same for me and my family with out beliefs. It’s a clumsy system, but I don’t have any better ideas.
Again, I think the major problem facing today’s world is how people with conflicting whirled views can live in peace. Somebody recently indicated the solution will be when Jesus comes again.
Long time no see.
Perhaps long time to wait.
Report comment to moderator
#26 SteveG “That is, to be as clear as I can, NOT because of any one or two or three fossils, but because of the accumulated weight of 150 years of scientific inquiry.”
So then being wrong for a longer period of time makes it right?
Report comment to moderator
“I think it is fairly obvious, however, that the majority of people who home-school are conservative Christians, and part of their motivation for so doing is to impose their world view on their children.”
Your opinion, duly noted. From what I have observed, their world-view is to remove them from a corrupt public school system, where the dog-eat-dog world of progressivism fondles the tweakable minds of children who are dispossessed of fundamental values and principles. It has nothing to do with creationism, or myths. But, opinions are just that; opinions.
Jesus will return when there are lives worthy of saving. You cannot save a drowning man if he is not drowning.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #12 said: “Without clearly understanding what we mean by the Bible being correct, we cant make any argument regarding whether science disuptes the Bible or not.”
I think you contradicted yourself in your post in #7 where you said: “even when the objective data shows that one is incorrect”
As the old saying goes: either poop or get off the pot.
Show me one scientific discovery that contradicts the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Awstar post 40,
no contradiction.
If the data shows you are incorrect in assumingthe Bible is correct, then you have a question regarding the truth of the bible.
I am still waiting for what you mean by7 the accuracy of the Bible, because without it we can not determine the status of either your statements or mine.
That you have not replied, I suggest is telling.
Report comment to moderator
Now this is one of the more amusing versions of this discussion. For the first time in a bit, I dont see those arguing for the truth of the bible:
1) clearly defining what they mean by truth (e.g. Peter Leavett used to argue for the inerrancy of the Bible but that Genesis was allegorical, as compared to others who tried to defend an historical flood)
2) making specfic claims regarding trueh drawn from the Bible
Report comment to moderator
I suggest that perhaps FuzzyFace is making the most interesting claims right now, as I count them
1) that science requires that things always remain the same (post 21)
2) an apparent argument against an earth millions of years old (post 21)
3) an argument based on his cat sample that dating is incorrect
More correctly, science makes its analysis of age based not on things staying the same, but how they change. And wise scientists tend to base it on more than one type of data. I have noted in this discussin several times that the following approaches provide objective data that the earth at least is hundreds of millions or more years old:
1) cooling analysis of the eath (Lord Kelvin’s analysis updated)
2) plate tectonics (simply considering the movement of India from Africa to Asia yields well over 200 million years of age)
3) multiple types of radioactive dataing (I believe there are at least two uranium cycles, not to mention Kr/Ar or Ar/Ar dating)
4) astrophysical analysis of the age of the sun
So lets make clear what this data can tell us:
a) it can tell us with a very high level of certainty that the earth is not thousands of years old
b) this data does not clarify whether the earth is hundreds of millions of years old or billions of years old, and to analyze that one must do a careful error analysis, compare many of the best known samples, and then at best one will have a statistical probability of the date
So I believe that based on this data which has been rehashed many tmes, no one is seriously goinbg to argue that there is objective data showing that the earth is thousands of years old.
And note that all of these depend on analyzing how things change, not arguing that they stay the same. Indeed rate anaslysis is critical hear and all attempts to make the times shorter fail on rate arguments (typically energy release rates: my favotie is the hydroplate theory which would have the surface of the earth vaporized by the event)
We can contnue on FuzzyFaces discussion on dating of his cat: and how did he preserve the sample? Is his borother trained to ensure that contamination does not occur?
We have seen this type or error in particular in the ICR attepts to refute K-Ar dating (indeed K-Ar dating does appear to require special care to ensure valid results).
Now lets move on questions of the universe: an argument is often made that the scientific analyses require that physics remain constant. Which is almost true. More correctly we assume that the physical processes which we measure today are true in the behaviors in the past and then go verify this. The key for dating conversations are the speed of light and the rate of atomic physics. Now for the speed of lioght to vary one has an interestng set of supporiting constants which must also vary consistently. And indeed this analysis has been performed. However, space-time arguments lead to the necessity that the contstants be the same at any given space-time, not a given time. As such one reaches circularities where a given point in space potentialy has to have two sets of constants, depending on which space-time it is being compared to, and this at the same local time. So far the speed of light based on all available data has maintained its constancy (there is a very interestng argument here, but it will not get you an earth of thousands of years).
And since supernova atomic physics appears to be constant in all supernovas, and due to space-time arguments, some of these happened quite some time ago:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM41
it would seem that the laws of physics have indeed stayed constant.
I can continue, but again unless someone want to replay the great age of the earth debates, I suggest we accept that the earth is as a minimum hundred of millions if not billions of years old.
Report comment to moderator
Notice amusingly that there has beenlittle discusison of evolution in this thread!
for completeness, as typically understood, evolution argues that all the complex life forms are descended form a common ancestor. the standard argument is that thisopccurs due to changes in the genetic structure. Tpically these changes are argued to be random, and the process of natural selection winnows out those mutations which are positive or neutral, and mitigates against those which are detrimental.
There is always the amusing argument over what is a detrimental trait: the definiton does not to be nearly as obvous as it might seem.
Since we have established an old earth, the layering of the sediments follows directly as a mehtod of establishing chronolgy. the chronology of the sediments then allows us to constuct what wold appear to be families relationships among the specimens basedon structure and timne.
When we add the ability to make DNA comparisons, the argument for the relationship of the specimens in a satructure becomes nealry iron clad.
And this leads to the most parsimoniousa argument being that they are related to each other through changes over time: effectively demonstrating the descent from ma common ancestor argument.
I am asuming that no one is seriously going to argue that the common ancestor is refuted by the DNA and sedimentary data.
Which therefore means that those opposing this interpretation must establish an alternative interpretation which is both supported by the data and is arguably as parsimonious. If it is not as parsimonious, then they will need to justify the additional complexity of their argument.
Report comment to moderator
Perhpas now is the time to add Inteligent Deisgn to the discussion. This argument, however is relativley short:
1) how do you prove an intelliegnet designer?
2) is the intelligent desaigner a necessary assumption or can it be abandoned by an occam’s razor argument?
Now if someone has the temerityy to argue that intellgient design can be objectviely proved by the data, I will merely ask for a quantitative validated approach top proving design?
The irreeducible complexity arguments are typically moire tiresom, but we can say tyhat many biological systems are reducible: rmeove my appendix and I still live, so the burden for an ireeducible complexity argument is quite high. But sure, lets try the flageelum or the eye.
Report comment to moderator
There are still some loose ends:
1) how did the uyniverse start
2) how did life start
The first question as posed is not actually a scientific question: science can not project thorgh a singularity. Although stay tuned: there are som einteresting things occuring asone studies gravitaitonal singularitiesd and quantum physics.
The second question of course is the subject of much research, but the results are incomplete.
but as Random name noted, science continues to increase its base of knowledge over time, refines its models over time, and corrects its errors over time.
It does not make anasumption that mans knowledge can ever be perfect or complete.
Report comment to moderator
With luck, perhaps we have established the barriers which FuzzyFace must address to contiue his arguments.
I am waiting for awstar to tell me what he means by the biuble being true.
Report comment to moderator
Lets do a side trip on FuzzyFaces comment in post 19:
“First of all – you can’t prove history with science.”
Actualy one can at least disprove history with science.
My favorite example is Pliny the younger on the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pompeii.htm
As I undertsand PLiny’s material he believed that the residents of Heraculaneum has escaped. Archaeology shows that they were also enrombed in the lava.
And for fun the Ar-Ar datig of the rock samples from the eruption shows a date of 79 AD
https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/277/5330/1279
I fact, I will suggest that without onbjective scientific data to support an historical narrative, we can not say with confidence that any historical narrative is in fact arguably objectviely true as written.
Report comment to moderator
so for some more thoughts on history, since FuzzyFace entered it into the dsicussion, see:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/pi4.html
As I have noted before, eyewirtness testimony is highly unjreliable (tesitng of 50% reliability discussed in the article).
Now FuzzyFace would apparenlty remove science from tools to establohs history.
Now if I don’t have reliabler eyewitness testimony AND FuzzyFace argues that science can not be used, what tools do we have to establish history?
Indeed followed to its logical conclusions all history becomes totaly suspect and arguably we have no history.
I am not sure that FuzzyFace intended to argue that all history sould be abandoned, and yet FuzzyFace does not seem to be in a posiiton to be able to argue that all eyewitness testimony is correct either.
Report comment to moderator
“so you are being clear that your understanding of the resurreciton is based only your faith and not on objective fact?”
A question that betrays the incoherence of the questioner. Faith is trust, it requires a referent. Faith in what? The historical evidence of the resurrection as recorded within the lifetime of witnesses to the events? The growth of the church, defined by its historical continuity with its historical milieu and its innovations that separate it? A resurrection that is in fact a singularity of the type in a later post you pronounce as beyond scientific analysis?
What is objective fact? Is there some realm of objectivity that serves as a default, an empiricism not subject to the perceptual limitations of our senses, or calibration of our instruments, or proclivity for patterning engineered into our brains?
Both are necessary. The empiricist must have faith in his perceptions, and interpretation of those perceptions. The faithful must trust something outside themselves. To place the two in opposition is to misunderstand them both.
The statement on inerrancy you linked to is a good one. The initial abstracted declarations seemed at first reading almost too rigid to withstand serious scrutiny, driven by a polemical need to refute the willfully fuzzy thinking employed by theologically liberal churches in order to abandon the clear teaching of Scripture in favor of a modern mish-mash of wishy-washymess.
The fuller explanations that follow assert the necessity of appreciating cultural, linguistic, and literary techniques, genre, and our historical expectations regarding numerical precision, citations, calendar and time reckoning, etc. Biblical literalism has always been understood by its more thoughtful and educated proponents to refer to the specific intents of the inspired authors and the God who inspired them.
The failure to account for literary device, cultural expectations and linguistic phenomena, which sometimes also infects credulous Christians, seems to universally infect the critical intelligentsia, whose naive criticism of Biblical passages betrays a narrow provincialism of the worst sort, a narcissistic understanding of themselves as the repository of the wisom of the ages and apostles of modern “scientific” objectivity.
Report comment to moderator
ken post 50,
ah but you provided many examples of what you say consitutes faith. And I can accept that.
But I do not sense any objective data, only your faith, which matches my observation to NJLawyer. Indeed it was NJLawyer who entered the term faith as posed, and I suggest then that perhaps your argument is with NJLawyer, not me?
As to the Chicago statement, I believe I pulled what I believe to be one of the standard postings of the document.
I like the chicago statement as a model for discussing inerrancy, since it is one of the stronger inerrancy arguments I have seen.
I suggest that from an objective perspective it is effectively untenable, which makes it all the more useful as a tool to explore the faith vs. objectvie data issues.
I believe, however, that we can make a short summary here: a strong inerreancy model (of which the Chicago Statement is I suggest one) also makes a specific statement that those holding this position reject objective evidence. And peculiarly, I believe that this is indeed a sustainable position BUT one must therefore also accept that ones statements based on this position are not valid in an arena which is based on objective data.
Since science is a specific stylized study of objective data, one can not critique the scientific results based on this non-objective data framework. Hence FuzzyFace’s arguments over dating techniques are moot.
One can make some very interesting and deep statments about the utility and applicability of science in general, and these are interesting and typically long discussions.
So far in WMB I believe I have counted only two posters who actually were willing to accept the non-obective position entailed by a strict inerrancy model.
Report comment to moderator
Ken post 50,
now your question here:
“What is objective fact? Is there some realm of objectivity that serves as a default, an empiricism not subject to the perceptual limitations of our senses, or calibration of our instruments, or proclivity for patterning engineered into our brains?”
opens the deeper discussion.
I have a detaile dderivation of what is meant by objectvie fact which I have presetned several times in WMB. There is an interesting and inherent irony in what is meant by objective fact which has tripped up tony woodlief in particular in the past.
It makes an interesting diversion: shall we go there?
Report comment to moderator
Ken post 50,
so for some fun lets start.
What is an objective fact?
Report comment to moderator
So lets frame the situaito clealry for moving forward.
Ken has quite correctly asked a question about objective in the context of his post 50. And this is a cricial and important question.
Ken appearenlty questions my coherence in understanding based on my response to NJLawyer.
Fair enough, my undertsanidng may be incoherent. Let us accept this as a starting hypothesis. But the demonstration of this, given the paucity of information as supplied in the relaitively short posts 13 and 14, I suggest requires, as I have noted, a much deeper discussion.
And I am offerring to hold this discussion.
And it would seem that the incoherence or lack thereof in my understanding would plausibly require this more detailed discussion to provide confirmation on this point.
And as noted, I am looking forward to this discussion with Ken.
Report comment to moderator
I find it interesting that clearly rational and apparently intelligent people continue to contend that only belief in objectively verifiable scientific conclusions are rational. There are many obviously rational conclusions by which we operate that are simply assumed as true because they need to be. Among them logic and mathamatics, good and evil, asthetic beauty, metaphysicals like mind or meaning, as well as assptions of science itself. Allow me a poem…
Living By Faith
If I were to tell you that living by faith is something all humans must do
You would probably cringe or shake your head and wonder if I was losing it
But if I could list, to your satisfaction, some rational propositions
That science can’t touch no matter how much you adore scientific traditions
You might start to notice that life is much richer than noticed by simple reduction
And notice for once that knowing, for some things, Is purely a mental deduction
Since there is so much we all must believe that science will never quite prove
It’s easy to see, if you bother to hold out for truth as your only true love.
So, starting from scratch, then, here’s a quick rundown of what we already accept
That science is helpless to verify—but none of us dare to reject.
First, logic and math, which are really quite useful and most of us rightly assume
To be true, and we use them but don’t ever prove them by scientific rules.
The metaphysical is another quizzical area we all accept
That has no basis in physical matter and will not submit to our tests.
That you are a person who thinks and believes, is something I know to be true
But finding the mind that is thinking and feeling is not something science can do
So move on to evil and good, which we notice, is difficult to define clearly
Though torturing babies for fun or for profit is usually thought of as nearly
The clearest example of something abhorrent to any decent conception
Of human goodness, which indicates we have a moral direction.
Aesthetics, like beauty, as captured in art, or perceived in the wonders of nature,
Can hardly be tested or proven as lovely yet who doesn’t value their features?
Though it may be skin-deep, and ugly, a chillingly, bone-shaking recognition,
Beauty prevails as an ultimate measure, inspiring the human condition.
And, finally, science itself is rife with assumptions required for its duty
Like logic or persons or moral positions or even the concept of beauty
The speed of light as a constant of physics, still moving in one direction,
Though it is assumed, it’s needed to figure the energy/matter connection.
So whether we ever admit it or not, we all live by faith in unproven
Assumptions that rational minds accept to have any normal function
And sticking our heads in the sand while chanting incantations of science
Will not serve us well or enrich our existence or to even allow us to find it.
I rather think, solidly seeing, that faith; an essentially human component;
Is what lifts us higher than mere brilliant apes who deny their own faith every moment
And all the while proving that faith is the basis of much they aspire to achieve
Laced through this rejection, a faithful selection of truth they still choose to believe.
Report comment to moderator
“However, it is my opinion that scientists are much more willing to adjust beliefs to facts than religious believers.”
Fals dichotomy and sweeping generalization at the same time.
In my opinion, religious believing scientists have insight from both realms. But they are sinners too, just like the rest of us who need forgiveness.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG @ #26 wrote; “most of the Creationists seem to think that the ‘proof’ of evolution is found just a small number of a ‘a-ha!’ examples and if they prove to be mistakes (or hoaxes, frauds, etc.) the whole enterprise collapses.”
I don’t recall anyone, let alone any “Chreationist”, expressing that thought until SteveG tried to put it in their minds and mouths. Then SteveG followed up his own rather disrespectful generalization about Creationists with this:
“It’s this kind of deep-seated ignorance that makes the conversation really not worth the trouble.”
Actually, what makes the conversation so troublesome is that the Creationist side is disrespected, pilloried and ridiculed from the outset based on unfair conclusions about what they presumably think. What makes the conversation troubling is that too many evolutionists put words and thoughts into the minds and mouths of Creationists before they even listen to us. They make up notions of what we think and then they call us “ignorant” for believing what THEY presume we believe.
For instance, SteveG completely presumes that Creationists are “threatened” by other points of view. I am a Creationist and I have no idea what he is talking about. The Creationists on this blog love to discuss ideas and engage those with whom we disagree.
Report comment to moderator
Good post at #25, Fuzzyface.
I don’t have definite ideas about dating our origins and I am more flexible than other Creationists in identifying such dates (and the Bible does not give us dates for that either). But the fact remains that scientists have a whole lot more reason to be very humble and flexible in their consclusions than they think they do. They know less than they think they know.
Report comment to moderator
Believing that God created the universe has a strong component of faith in it. And so much of what get’s asserted as “science” these days (and reported as such) takes a whole lot more faith than the first propostion. At least the first proposition admits that faith is in the equation. Many scientists are blind to the extent of faith in their worldview and they are quite blind to their blindness.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Random,
You wrote:
Why would that be a problem if that were the natural course of evolution? Is it a “problem” that pandas evolved a fondness for bamboo?
Report comment to moderator
snagmtnsage post 55,
now when you say:
“I find it interesting that clearly rational and apparently intelligent people continue to contend that only belief in objectively verifiable scientific conclusions are rational.”
I am unsrue who you may be referring to.
Beliefs do not require being objectviely verifiable. IN fact many of our beliefs are not.
However, the trouble occurs whne one confound one’s beliefs with objective truth. That is irrational.
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 57,
when you say:
“What makes the conversation troubling is that too many evolutionists put words and thoughts into the minds and mouths of Creationists before they even listen to us. ”
I am indeed happyt to hear crerationists express their opiniuons and beliefs.
I do require, however, that if they suggest that their opinions and beliefs are to be takne as objectvie fact, that they provide objectvie data to support these beliefs and opinions.
To simplify matters, as I have noted earlier, there is no objective support for a young earth. So based on your comments, may I assume you are an old earth creationist? There are some very interesting old earth creationists arguments and discussions.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 59,
when you say:
“Believing that God created the universe has a strong component of faith in it.”
and interesatingly at this time there is no evidence to refute this position (a comment I made earlier).
If one is to argue this position one needs to remember several points:
1) as of this point we have no evidence one way or another
2) the argument as posed is today therefore a mtaphysical discussion, not a scientific discussion
3) the only plausaible refutation is a very very weak occam razor argument
However, for the phenomenon after the creation of the universe, the same can not be said of the religious argument. In the main a God is an unneccessary assumption from the persepctive of the development of the universe.
Report comment to moderator
Musing post 61
Well, obviously I’m refering to “clearly rational and apparently intelligent people (who) continue to contend that only belief in objectively verifiable scientific conclusions are rational.”
I hope that is not too vague. or did you want names?
Look, you state the obvious:
“Beliefs do not require being objectviely verifiable. IN fact many of our beliefs are not.”
Which indicates you may have missed the point; that while beliefs may be not be objectively verifiable, that does not require that such beliefs are irrational.
You add:
“However, the trouble occurs whne one confound one’s beliefs with objective truth. That is irrational.”
As if I had done that. Rather, I pointed to specific subjects that most rational people would agree are true but that are not verifiable by science. My hope was that you would notice how restrictive and hypocritical one would be to accept such things as true without verification and then insist that only verifiable things are true for everyone else. Duplictious, to say the least.
And I would also counter that, to insist that only objectively verifiable beliefs are rational (as opposed to true) is where things can get stupid. I think the poem offered 5 examples of the kinds of rational beliefs that are also not objectively verifiable. There is no confusion on my part or confounding of belief with verifiable truth. I am merely pointing to obvious rational exceptions to your “objectively verifiable” straightjacket that are usually considered true by rational people.
Not all things that most rational people accept as true and operate according to are objectively or scientifically verifiable as you seem to demand. Logic and mathamatics, metaphysical entities, asthetic beauty, moral good, and certain propositions of science, to restate my examples on the off chance you might discuss them.
I have probably repeated myself here…
Report comment to moderator
post 63. .. However, for the phenomenon after the creation of the universe, the same can not be said of the religious argument. In the main a God is an unneccessary assumption from the persepctive of the development of the universe.
Why; is the unknown unnecessary? What do you know about the unknown that escapes even the religious? The concept of the unknown is manifested in GOD. Why deny what we do not know; declaring it an unnecessary assumption? That’s like saying the unknown does not exist.
Report comment to moderator
snagmtnsage post 64,
when you say:
“Which indicates you may have missed the point; that while beliefs may be not be objectively verifiable, that does not require that such beliefs are irrational. ”
then please note that I have never said beliefs per se are irrational.
What I have alwyas said is confounding your beliefs with objectvie truth is irrational.
And that still holds.
It would seem that it is you who are missing the point.
A simple example is esthetics: one’s belief in what is beautiful is not subject to objective proof. To argue that I must agree with your sense of beauty is irrational.
Report comment to moderator
Snamtmsage post 64,
and when you say:
“My hope was that you would notice how restrictive and hypocritical one would be to accept such things as true without verification and then insist that only verifiable things are true for everyone else. Duplictious, to say the least. ”
please note that I dont require that for thiose things which are not objectvie.
but when one says as an example that the Bible is striclty inerrant as an objective statement it is perfectly acceptable for me to insist on objective proof.
If one does not use belief to attempt to prove the objective, I tend to be very flexible and sympathetic. To insist that one’s beliefs are objectively true requires a high burden of proof on your end.
Report comment to moderator
Snagmtmsage post 64,
and when you say:
“And I would also counter that, to insist that only objectively verifiable beliefs are rational (as opposed to true)”
I merely suggest you havenot been reading my posts carefully.
I hold a very high regard for objective truth and hold high standards here to be sure.
But peculiarly enough as I have developed in WMB sevral times, the value of objecive truth is based on subjective judgement, and I hold quality subjective arguments on these points in high reagrd as well.
But please oh please do not try to use subjective arguments to prove objective truth.
Report comment to moderator
TE post 65,
because the development of the universe post the initial creation so far has been demonstrated to be subject to natural laws and can be explained without recourse to a God.
As such, God becomes an unnecessary assumption for the development of the universe.
That does not mean that God is an unnecessary assumption: this is an excellent and interesting discussion in itself. It means that God is not necessary for development of the universe.
And for the record I do believe in God.
Report comment to moderator
TE post 65,
now when you say:
“Why; is the unknown unnecessary?”
we actually have to then ask, what type of unknown? It would seem you may have lumped together many disparate concepts in one gunney sack.
Report comment to moderator
TE post 65,
when you say:
“The concept of the unknown is manifested in GOD.”
I reply that there are certain unknowns which have no obvious connection to God (and for which if you do construct a connection, it becomes highly artifical: see MMacMurrays’ discussions regaridng Shiloh in whirled-views-10-24).
And others which are trivial: what will I eat tomorrow evening perhaps.
So again, what unknowns???
Report comment to moderator
XION Well, they were wrong. Once again, they didn’t really know what they were talking about. And miracle of miracles, they actually admitted it. Hallelujah!
XION and SCOTT seem greatly relieved that Ida is an ancestor of the lemurs rather than of the monkeys and apes, as the finders first proposed.
But they’re missing the point. Most fossil experts were pre-disposed all along to infer that Ida was a lemur, and subsequent analysis of Ida has confirmed what they think about primate evolution.
Impressive, huh? We have a clear enough picture of primate evolution to sort a 47-million year old fossil between the monkeys and the lemurs.
But that was way, way earlier than the first possible appearance of the image of God in a hominin, only 4.4 MYA, in the species Ardipithecus ramidus. “Ardi” may or may not be a direct ancestor of humans, but she is the first known hominin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardi
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: But they’re missing the point.
This surprises you?
Here are the first two paragraphs of the article Scott linked to. Note that: To see this, one needs to do no more research than to click a link right in this thread, and read two paragraphs:
Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and television documentary? A publicity blitz called it “the link” that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.
Experts protested that Ida was not even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.
See? The scientists who are experts NEVER SAID that Ida was a direct or close ancestor of humans. They protested the publicity blitz from the first. And yet Xion and others feel completely comfortable painting this as scientists sheepishly having to admit they were wrong.
I really have no patience left for people who do not understand the science they are talking about making confident proclamations that the scientists who have spent their careers working diligently in their various fields are just wrong. It’s especially maddening when it appears they can’t even understand two simple paragraphs in a newspaper article — or are so wedded to their prejudices that they just really don’t care what the truth is.
Report comment to moderator
Steve: You have a point, but I don’t think it’s an issue as much as you think it’s an issue. Was anyone saying that the experts are the ones sheepishly admitting error? The clearest example of that mistake I can find in this thread at the moment is Random in #1, not a Christian at all. I got the impression that the thread itself is mainly talking about the media.
Report comment to moderator
“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proven wrong, impudently twisting the facts to show that we were right.” George Orwell
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus post 75,
indeed.
The skill is to change what you believe when it is shown to be false.
Very few have the discipliine or skill to do this.
Amusingly in science, the approach is to then attempt to minimize what one believes, and force one to provide objective proof for what one asserts.
Failures still occur, but the discipline required to state that my data apparently was in error is far less than the discipline required to say that what I believed is wrong.
We see the wreckage of those in WMB who dont have the discipline to admit that what they believed was wrong all the time in WMB.
Report comment to moderator
For Atheists, Evolution MUST be fact.
For Christians, and for scientists, evolution is merely a nice theory that is allowed to evolve as our facts are better known.
Report comment to moderator
Aphi: For anyone who understands the science, evolution IS fact. Theologies that can’t accommodate that fact are misguided.
Christianity CAN accommodate evolution. However, many individual Christians don’t seem to be willing or able to do so.
Report comment to moderator
When anthropologists find fossils
Anthropologists, Scott? I don’t know of many anthropologists who search for fossils.
Did you mean paleontologists?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 10.26.09 AT 9:12 AM
Aphi: For anyone who understands the science, evolution IS fact
—
where is the proof?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the heart of the issue is the origin of life. If you can’t explain the origin of life you have nothing but an empty shell of conjecture.
Please read this, and then tell us exactly how life began – IN FACT, not in theory. You really ought to tell the scientific community so they will stop wasting money on more experiments.
Scientists propose new hypothesis on the origin of life
http://www.physorg.com/news171263002.html
Report comment to moderator
Scott was right. Biological (physical) anthropologists search for hominid fossils. Paleontologists investigate the whole history of life on earth, not just the record of human evolution.
The most famous/infamous American biological anthropologist is TimD. White, who worked on Lucy and led the team that discovered Ardi, and then squashed the findings for 17 years, creating a feud amongst anthropologists.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis what amazes me is how much faith people have in their religious belief of evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop – I stand corrected.
Report comment to moderator
I hate missing all the fun.
Evolution is limited, and speciation can occur over mere decades it would seem.
I believe it is Wilbur? who has mentioned a “Creation Orchard” theory. Which is not one tree, but many trees and from those trees sprouts the diversity we see with limitations along its respective branches.
God can very easily create according ot kinds as Genesis claims, and use evolution as a means of diversification. Limited, but sufficient.
The problem is two fold. On the theistic evolution end, it is the unwillingness to extend the preeminence of the Bible to every aspect of life, even Genesis. On the creationist end, we have a tendency to ignore the good ideas just because a few sound bad.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not a problem that biologists haven’t explained the origin of the Archaea, or may never explain it. It’s simply an unknown.
It is a problem, however, that people rely upon the claims of an ancient Near Eastern literary character for information about natural history.
Report comment to moderator
Those who speak so dogmatically of “objective fact” (as if only their side has a handle on it) need to remember that many serious evolutionist-evagelists thought that “Ida” was objectively factual evidence for their theories.
Wrong again.
Report comment to moderator
amphipolis post 77,
when you say:
“For Christians, and for scientists, evolution is merely a nice theory that is allowed to evolve as our facts are better known. ”
excellent insight, noting that however, evolution as presenlty understood best matches the data available.
but of course if the data is found to be faulty, then the theory must change. That is the scientific way. It was demonstrated quite nicely when Einstein presented special relativity.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I believe it is Wilbur? who has mentioned a “Creation Orchard” theory. Which is not one tree, but many trees and from those trees sprouts the diversity we see with limitations along its respective branches.
God can very easily create according ot kinds as Genesis claims, and use evolution as a means of diversification. Limited, but sufficient.
Nice idea, but supported by no observable evidence and contradicted by much.
There’s already a pretty good understanding of the — single — evolutionary tree, and evidence (fossils, genomes and othewise) to help established what branched off from what and when.
Again, I plead with you … read a real science book
Report comment to moderator
Everyone who thinks Ida is evidence of primate evolution is completely correct.
Right again.
Report comment to moderator
On the theistic evolution end, it is the unwillingness to extend the preeminence of the Bible to every aspect of life, even Genesis.
The Bible was the best people could come up with thousands of years ago as a way to confront existential questions. As these questions still perplex and torments us today, it still has resonance.
In a time before the scientific method had been developed, it was one of many “creation myths.” We still don’t know how it all began, and possibly may never, but in that regard the Bible has very little relevance to us today.
Gradually, a realization of this is seeping into human consciousness. Even so, it remains amazing to me that the same people who will talk about Jove and Thor and Coyote and so on and glibly say, “Creation Myth,” will then tell us that the Garden of Eden story is literally true.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Will all respect I plead with you to get your nose out of the science book and look at what even many evolutionists have disagreements over.
The phylogenetic tree is based mainly on “molecular clocks” now adays. It’s rates are assumed. However, even wikipedia notes the limitations of this method. Further its dating doesnt line up with paleontology fossil evidence. Studies are also showing that the rates very from organism to organism, thus bringing this all into speculation.
This is why even nonchristian evolutionists posit multiple ancestors. And really why not? If you can get one; two, three, four should be possible as well should they not?
Considering that this tree is also based on the assumption that new information can be created, it is speculative as well. Natural Selection only reorganizes or deletes. It doesnt create new. Therefore speciation is limited. Therefore, it really should be multiple trees.
Try looking at it for once without the inferred lines.
Report comment to moderator
#87
What are “evolutionist-evagelists?”
I am dyslexic and make typing mistakes all the time so I feel I’ve “earned” the right to be snotty about such comments.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: The phylogenetic tree is based mainly on “molecular clocks” now adays. It’s rates are assumed. However, even wikipedia notes the limitations of this method. Further its dating doesnt line up with paleontology fossil evidence. Studies are also showing that the rates very from organism to organism, thus bringing this all into speculation.
As you well know, wikipedia is open to anyone to edit and while they do have a team of professional editors who patrol it and try to remove unsupported information, the presence of something on wikipedia is not sound documentation.
The concept of molecular clocks is relatively new and nobody (except I suppose Creationists trying to discredit evolution) thinks that they should line up precisely with fossil evidence. They’re not precise, and the variation from organism to organism is expected.
And that’s your problem, Thorn. You talk about the areas on which evolutionists disagree or where there are open questions and pounce on those as confirmation that the whole enterprise is bogus. If you knew anything about how science works, you would understand that areas of disagreement and open questions are precisely normal for ongoing inquiry. It doesn’t mean that evolution overall is wrong, just that for every question we can answer, new ones arise, because there is always a new discovery to be explored.
Report comment to moderator
Musing. .. I reply that there are certain unknowns which have no obvious connection to God (and for which if you do construct a connection, it becomes highly artifical: see MMacMurrays’ discussions regaridng Shiloh in whirled-views-10-24).
And others which are trivial: what will I eat tomorrow evening perhaps.
I have to ask; what is a certain unknown? What you may eat tomorrow may depend on the unknown that you may not be around tomorrow to eat. An unknown is just that; an unknown. However; to say unknowns do not exist is tantamount to saying GOD does not exist. Statistically, if unknowns exist, then GOD exists contemporary to all unknowns; whether certain or not.
Since you mentioned in 69; ‘natural law’, it can only occur with the concept of GOD. Could we quote Cicero on ‘natural law?’
“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application; unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. It is a sin to try and alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder, or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now or in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations, and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, and that is GOD, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and it’s enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself ad denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact, he will suffer the worst punishment.”
Undoubtedly, in 40 BC, Cicero even disagreed with your assessment and your opinion was unknown to him.
Report comment to moderator
#94
areas of disagreement normal for …
Does this mean that I should not regard the various theological disputes throughout the history of Christianity, not to mention throughout the history of religious belief, as a reason to suspect that religious believers do not know what they are talking about even though thousands of years of argument and conflict have led to no universal agreement on the nature of God?
I will really have to think on this one.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I’m aware wikipedia isnt the be all of end all. Are science books anybetter? Not really, at least wiki has guardians watching over it. I also merely said the current limitations and issues bring it into speculation.
I didnt outright reject its usefullness or reject the entirity of evolution.
In fact, Creationists are using it as well in what they call “Barminology” or the study of the created kinds, along with other evidence such as historical breeding to build a stronger case. It’s a newer area as well.
But my main point here is that the debate on the evolutionary tree is far from over. As you willingly admit there are plenty of open questions and one answer only leads to more questions. I willingly admit that open questions are great, and do not disprove evolution, as I’ve only stated its limited. I think there is plenty of evidence that shows that and I think there is also plenty of evidence to show that it based off more than just molecular clocks.
There’s alot of dotted lines in your science book trees…
Just because there are open questions in creationism does not disprove it either.
As a christian Steve, it is important to not only give God preeminence in our salvation, but also in his Word, and in his creation. Realize that just like nonchristian scientist can hit on truth, so can christian scientists. Sift through the actual good and the bad. Everyone has a bias, and everyone is shaped by their world view.
I hope that as you counsel me to read, you are actually taking the time to read some of the great work that is done by some of these creation scientists rather than dismissing them outright.
Report comment to moderator
In fact, Creationists are using it as well in what they call “Barminology” or the study of the created kinds, along with other evidence such as historical breeding to build a stronger case. It’s a newer area as well.”
It’s a complete joke and nothing but sham pseudo-science. There aren’t just “open questions” in creationism, unless by “open question” you mean the inability to explain flat contradictions – hoards and hoards of ‘em.
Report comment to moderator
read some of the great work that is done by some of these creation scientists
I have reviewed the creationist literature extensively and have yet to come upon a single “great work” or even a fragment that can be called “great”. I find fraud, illiteracy, dishonesty, and ignorance in spades, however. This becomes apparent whenever one adequately fact checks what creationists say against the work of trained scientists.
Creationists lie. This is established by thorough fact checking. They deliberately misrepresent the evidence, and they misrepresent scientific understanding of it. They are liars.
Report comment to moderator
“Creationists lie. This is established by thorough fact checking. They deliberately misrepresent the evidence, and they misrepresent scientific understanding of it. They are liars.”
Gosh, I just have to ask; you mean every single Creationist that has ever breathed is a liar? Or, were you just generalizing when you said ‘they?’ Still, again, what do you base your opinion on? Now, please don’t say ‘The Bible’, because everyone knows it was written by old men sheep-hearders, back before there were pencils.
Report comment to moderator
“Creationists lie. This is established by thorough fact checking. They deliberately misrepresent the evidence, and they misrepresent scientific understanding of it. They are liars.”
Because they are creationists or because they are human?
Because there are alot of non creationists liars too…
“It’s a complete joke and nothing but sham pseudo-science.”
As far as I know the research hasnt been published yet, only discussed. Not sure how you can judge it yet.
Considering that it relies on the same principles that phylogenics does, its directive is to determine whether it was 1 single ancestor or if it was X number of ancestors.
I hardly see how that is junk science.
“I have reviewed the creationist literature extensively and have yet to come upon a single “great work” or even a fragment that can be called “great”.”
This displays your bias, even the sun shines on a dog’s butt every once in awhile. Even a creationist will stumble onto some truth.
Report comment to moderator
Let me refine my last post.
Baraminology seeks to examine the discontinuity and not just continuity of taxa.
Good summary:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm
Definition:
http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=37891
My apologies on not presenting that correctly earlier.
Report comment to moderator
“Or, were you just generalizing when you said ‘they?’”
Yes – by “creationists”, I mean the cadre of hooligans that head up organizations like ICR, AIG, etc. I do NOT mean simply anyone that believes the universe is created.
Baraminology is complete crap Thorn. Show me ONE example of a “baramin” for which there is solid evidence that it was created independently of the rest of life. There is not a single one …
Report comment to moderator
“As far as I know the research ["baraminology"] hasnt been published yet, only discussed.”
you know little
Baraminology is an old idea that was first proposed by Frank Marsh in 1941. It’s complete bunk.
Report comment to moderator
A very kind “conclusion” from a professional systematist:
“Despite its use of computer software and flashy statistical graphics, the practice of baraminology amounts to little more than a parroting of scientific investigations into phylogenetics. A critical analysis of the results from the one “objective” software program employed by baraminologists suggests that the method does not actually work. The supremacy of the biblical criteria is explicitly admitted to by Wood and others (2003) in their guidebook to baraminology, so all their claims of “objectivity” notwithstanding, the results will never stray very far from a literal reading of biblical texts.”
Report comment to moderator
“Even a creationist will stumble onto some truth.”
And then do all he can to cover it up!
Report comment to moderator
“Baraminology is an old idea that was first proposed by Frank Marsh in 1941. It’s complete bunk”
Actually it was proposed well before then. If you had read the summary link (from 06) you would know that as well. Being an “old idea” is not support for dismissal.
“Baraminology is complete crap Thorn. Show me ONE example of a “baramin” for which there is solid evidence that it was created independently of the rest of life. There is not a single one …”
I believe you dont usually appreciate this line of arguement:
“Show me ONE example of a “transitional” species/fossil…”
As I was mistaken in the current study, bariminology seeks to examine the discontunity as well as continuity. It may or may not lead to a single or multiple common ancestors. As that may have been the origianl intent by Marsh, it is recognized as mostly improbable.
Considering it was only organized in the early 90s and revised about 6 years ago, its still in early stages of research.
I only brought it up as another way in which even phylenics may be used.
The summary I posted above was written by Wood, and he seems at least honest in where it has been, what the criticisms are, and where it should be revised or move foward. He does not “cover” anything up as you put it.
Report comment to moderator
Baraminology is a complete joke, Thorn – it has never led anywhere and it is not going to, because it is based on a premise that is flatly contradicted by genetics, fossils, and anatomy. You can “God-of-the-gaps” is all you want, but given the fossilization rate, genetic mutation rates, etc., it is overwhelmingly CLEAR that all life forms that we have ever studied are descended from a single common ancestor.
The cult of Baraminology will never be anything more than that – a CULT.
Report comment to moderator
“Show me ONE example of a “transitional” species/fossil…”
Scores of examples have already been shown on this site.
Now show me ONE “baramin” for which there is any shred of evidence that it is completely unrelated to the rest of the tree of life!
Report comment to moderator
” it is overwhelmingly CLEAR that all life forms that we have ever studied are descended from a single common ancestor.”
So it is not possible for other planets to have life then?
“Baraminology is a complete joke, Thorn”
Maybe, but its no less of a joke than those who take their time to study “multiverses”.
Darwin was a cult of his time. Most major changes in science have arisen out of paradigm shifts from the “cults”. Failure to always be open about what is truly known and what is not, leads to blind stubborness.
“Scores of examples have already been shown on this site.”
Show me. Show me….
“Now show me ONE “baramin” for which there is any shred of evidence that it is completely unrelated to the rest of the tree of life!”
I already linked to the summary in 06. If you had read it, you would have noticed the table Wood provided for the work thats been done so far. What’s been done in the last 3 years? I dunno.
As to its accuracy, who knows right now, its still a baby. Darwin has had a 150 year leeway, so your dismissal is early.
The important thing is that if continuity and similiarities are proof of evolution, then so should the discontinuities and dissimiliarties.
The problem i see is that our knowledge of how exactly evolution works and what variables directly trigger more or less change upon reproduction are little known.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!