Explaining the terminology used in Evolutionary Sciences

[Subduction Zone]

Good catch. There's a few others I usually catch myself, role-roll, bear-bare etc. and 'moot' is one of them.

I always have to think at least twice for bear/bare myself.

 

[Polymath257]

A possible explanation? Isn't God enough for a believer?

Well, it shouldn't be. Because saying 'God did it' isn't an explanation at all. And that is the core problem.

For example, suppose I ask how the pyramids were built. Saying that they were built by the Egyptians doesn't answer the question. It answers 'who' and not 'how'.

Time proved that Galileo was right.....and a reasonable approach should have sent them on a search for the truth. Instead of looking to see if they had misinterpreted scripture they persecuted him as a heretic.

And to find the truth, they needed to actually look at the world around them, NOT consult scripture at all.

If they had bothered to read Genesis more carefully, they would have seen room for the creative days to be long periods of time. They could also have seen that there was no timeframe between verse 1 and what followed. It could have been millions of years. Thankfully with advances in science, we have affirmed that Galileo was correct and that we can correlate the creation account with actual science, not the theoretical kind that has no substance.

The interpretation of the time scale is completely different than what Galileo was talking about. There are multiple verses in the Bible that very specifically state that the earth is fixed, immovable, etc. And *that* is what Galileo's observations brought into question, since they supported the Copernican system where the Earth *does* move.

Reading the Bible more closely in this case would not have helped Galileo.

 

[Polymath257]

There is scientifically accurate knowledge in the Bible, even though it was not written as a science textbook, when it touches on matters of science, it is very accurate.
It states that the earth is a circle or sphere. (Isaiah 40:22) It also states that the earth "hangs on nothing" (Job 26:7).....how could a Bible writer back then gain such knowledge when that was only visible from space? They knew nothing about gravity.

Except that the Isaiah verse doesn't say it is a sphere. It says it is a *circle*, which is a different word than sphere. And a circular (flat) Earth is consistent with all the Bible says.

As for the verse from Job, the Earth does NOT 'hang on nothing'. To 'hang' would make a claim of immovability. But we know the Earth does, in fact, move, contrary to the Biblical claims otherwise.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, as the line-up wasn't about a size comparision.

Lol!!!

It was about comparison!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol!!!

It was about comparison!

But not size comparison. Why do you place this artificial importance on size? Oh wait, I might have hit on a sore point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I gave you a winner, even if you did say "The question is mute". The more common mistake is "the point is mute". It reminded me of Joey Tribianni of Friends, it reminded the author of the following as well:

Moot Point vs. Mute Point - Everything After Z by Dictionary.com

If memory serves me right, I think the Joey Tribianni way was:

Joey: "It's a moo point".
Chandler (probably): "Moo??"
Joey: "Yeah... it's like a cow's opinion... it doesn't matter. It's.... Moo"




Or perhaps I'm thinking about another episode.


EDIT: and I just noticed that your link explains exactly that, lol...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol!!!

It was about comparison!

But not a size comparision.
The comparision was about the position of the nostrils relative to the skull - no matter the size.

"lol!!!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

If memory serves me right, I think the Joey Tribianni way was:

Joey: "It's a moo point".
Chandler (probably): "Moo??"
Joey: "Yeah... it's like a cow's opinion... it doesn't matter. It's.... Moo"




Or perhaps I'm thinking about another episode.


EDIT: and I just noticed that your link explains exactly that, lol...

That was exactly it. A Mooooo point!

 

[gnostic]

It states that the earth is a circle or sphere. (Isaiah 40:22) It also states that the earth "hangs on nothing" (Job 26:7).....

Circle don’t mean sphere.

Sphere is a 3D description of a shape, while circle is 2D shape.

Most Near Eastern cultures, including Hebrew culture, described as circle, but circle like a disk, not like a sphere, because if you bother to read another passage of Job (Job 38:13), the Earth is described as having “edges” or “ends” or “corners” (depending on the translations), which indicative a flat disk-shaped earth:

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?

13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?

13 So that it seizes the corners of the earth And shakes the wicked out of it?

Any sphere or near-spheroid object have no edges, ends or corners. Disk is both round and flat, and have edges or ends.

 

[ecco]

But if you pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe, and what to discount as "myth", then you risk trusting in the men who told you which is which.

But you pick and choose. How do you decide?

Here is an example in your own words...

If the creative "days" were not literal 24 hour days, but millions of years long, and if the earth and the entire universe was one creative event (the Big Bang) millions of years before that, there you have an explanation that allows science and the Bible to agree without compromising either.

 

[gnostic]

What about the hygiene and quarantine laws given to Israel?
Medical practitioners only learned about germs and the value of washing their hands at the beginning of last century.

You are forgetting the ancient Sumerians, who believe in hand washing.

According to the poem Death of Bilgames...Bilgames is the Akkadian-Babylonian-Assyrian Gilgamesh...Bilgames brought back the custom of hand washing after his visit to Ziusudra (Akkadian Atrahasis or Utnapishtim), the Deluge hero.

5 Sumerian poems of Bilgames existed during the 3rd dynasty of Ur, hence around 21st century BCE; that’s just about 1500 years before any appearances of OT texts.

 

[ecco]

It also states that the earth "hangs on nothing" (Job 26:7).....how could a Bible writer back then gain such knowledge when that was only visible from space?

Such scientific knowledge indeed!

7He stretches out the north over empty space;

He hangs the earth upon nothing.

8He wraps up the waters in His clouds,

yet the clouds do not burst under their own weight.

9He covers the face of the full moon,b

spreading over it His cloud.

10He has inscribed a horizon on the face of the waters

at the boundary between light and darkness.

11The foundations of heaven quake,

astounded at His rebuke.

12By His power He stirred the sea;

by His understanding He shattered Rahab.

13By His breath the skies were cleared;

His hand pierced the fleeing serpent.
​

Maybe that's why there are no more serpents.

 

[Deeje]

Well, it shouldn't be. Because saying 'God did it' isn't an explanation at all. And that is the core problem.

I never said "God did it" was an explanation.....but for a believer, it should be enough. The Creator is the source of all energy. Energy created matter. Can science tell us with any certainty, what created *life*?

Exploring what science has discovered and how it correlates to what the Bible says is faith strengthening to us as Jehovah's Witnesses. But we are careful to research what science claims because the theoretical parts of science are not facts until proven to be true. I am reminding people that taking science's unproven theories as if they discount what the Bible teaches, is foolish. They should be aware of the real facts....that real facts are are missing, shrouded in uncertain terminology and designed to give a false impression in our view.

I believe that you have to exercise as much (or even more) *faith* in what science *assumes* about how all the diverse lifeforms came to exist on this unique planet, than any Bible believer needs to exercise about the intelligence seen in the complex systems so obvious in nature. How many flukes display genius?

For example, suppose I ask how the pyramids were built. Saying that they were built by the Egyptians doesn't answer the question. It answers 'who' and not 'how'.

That is a rather weak analogy.....no one doubts that Egyptians built the pyramids.....they recorded many things that they did on the walls of their structures. So the "who" is not in question, but the "how" is a fascinating question to explore, given the size of their slave labor force and the incredible engineering and logistical problems in the locations where they stood. What an amazingly advanced culture for the times.

And to find the truth, they needed to actually look at the world around them, NOT consult scripture at all.

What makes you think we don't look at the world around us? We have scientists in our ranks too you know. These are as equally qualified as those who accept evolution without question. So interpretation is the key issue IMO. We all know that those scientists who fully support macro-evolution will interpret their findings according to their pre-conceived convictions. So why do those scientists then disparage the ones who don't see what they want to see? Character assassination follows and attempts at destroying credibility can lead to some being ridiculed or even worse, to lose their employment.

The interpretation of the time scale is completely different than what Galileo was talking about. There are multiple verses in the Bible that very specifically state that the earth is fixed, immovable, etc. And *that* is what Galileo's observations brought into question, since they supported the Copernican system where the Earth *does* move.

The Bible was not written for a science savvy audience. It is general information about what God created with the incredible power over nature that he actually demonstrated to them first hand. They saw with their own eyes that God's power could control the elements, but modern man took that simplicity and turned it into myth because they couldn't believe that such a being could exist because they have no instrumentation to test for him. Does science really know enough to rule out an all powerful Creator?

The truth is, they have no real instrumentation to test the very basic assumption of their theory either.....but you never hear about that.

Reading the Bible more closely in this case would not have helped Galileo.

Given the absolute power of the church in that period, (a power which history confirms corrupted them absolutely) there was no way for men like Galileo to fight for what they believed to be true. The Grand Inquisitor could order torture of the most heinous kind to guarantee a confession in order to justify their punishment or murder. Even being in possession of a Bible could mean being burned at the stake. There was no way for a dissenting voice of science to be heard like there is now.

Please don't judge Christianity on the conduct of an apostate church. Jesus and his apostles warned about that apostasy. It's not hard to identify the offenders.

Except that the Isaiah verse doesn't say it is a sphere. It says it is a *circle*, which is a different word than sphere. And a circular (flat) Earth is consistent with all the Bible says.

The Hebrew word chugh is translated “circle,” may also be rendered “sphere.” (According to A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson)
Remember that it was not as important to people back then as it is today when space travel confirms that the earth is not flat. Circumnavigation by ship was proof that the earth was not flat.

As for the verse from Job, the Earth does NOT 'hang on nothing'. To 'hang' would make a claim of immovability. But we know the Earth does, in fact, move, contrary to the Biblical claims otherwise.

To suggest an unsupported earth was not even in their thinking at the time. When you see illustrations concerning what they actually believed about how the earth was supported, it was ridiculous to say that the earth was hanging or suspended in space, with nothing holding it up.
We today have no doubt about gravity and how it affects many things in the universe and how even the gravity of the moon affects the tides on earth.

Humans have made great strides in the last couple of centuries, but most of their discoveries have been made in the last 100 years and especially so has it surged in the last 50 years or so. Science is still in its infancy however.....there is still so much to learn.

We believe that we are in the well described "time of the end". All the signs are there, even the personality traits of people living in this time period.

2 Timothy 3:1-5....
"But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away."

At no time in Christian history has this description of human behavior been more evident......at a time with the availability of knowledge and reason that is open to all, so that ignorance is no longer an excuse. We all have the means to explore everything and make our decisions.

This is why these "last days" are a judgment period....(like the days of Noah Jesus said, when no one listened to his warning about what was about to happen in response to their ungodliness...violence...and immorality) this is also a time when no one will be able to say to God...."I didn't know because nobody told me". (Matthew 24:37-39)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors.

I guess not much similarity is needed, to show relatedness. Just similar nostrils is good enough, apparently.

They’re grasping at straws! It’s funny to see their ‘dance’....yet sad to see their deliberate obfuscation and downplay of related evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess not much similarity is needed, to show relatedness. Just similar nostrils is good enough, apparently.

They’re grasping at straws! It’s funny to see their ‘dance’....yet sad to see their deliberate obfuscation and downplay of relative evidence.

You have to know better than that. That is just one small piece of evidence in whale evolution, yet a piece of evidence that creationists have no answer for. We all know who is grasping at straws.

 

[Deeje]

I guess not much similarity is needed, to show relatedness. Just similar nostrils is good enough, apparently.

They’re grasping at straws! It’s funny to see their ‘dance’....yet sad to see their deliberate obfuscation and downplay of related evidence.

Its a special kind of blindness....

 

[ecco]

yet sad to see their deliberate obfuscation and downplay of related evidence.

What related evidence was deliberately obfuscated and downplayed? Please be specific.

 

[ecco]

Its a special kind of blindness....

Yep. It's called "Blind Faith". It's a condition that only afflicts the religiously indoctrinated. Those who are severely indoctrinated suffer the most from this disease.

 

[tas8831]

This is just a small sample of why I think evolution is based on nothing but assumptions and imagination run amok. What they are actually looking at, and the interpretation they put on their evidence is influenced by their pre-conceived ideas about evolution. Their findings are neatly squeezed into their foregone conclusions....and you all believe them.

I am not buying it. I acknowledge that adaptation is a mechanism that was programmed by the Creator to ensure the survival of any individual species.....but there is not one shred of actual evidence that all life had a common ancestor.....I believe that they all had a common Creator. The evidence for his existence is all around us.

Who cares what you think?

You claim to have a science background and to have studied all this yet claim there is too much jargon in actual science for you to understand (you claim we are hiding behind words you cannot grasp). Then, you do what you did in this garbage post - paste some stuff that, because of the target audience, used simplistic examples, and you declare it to be fluff.

You're transparently disingenuous, and obviously ignorant of the material you claim to have studied.

 

[tas8831]

Great job, Deeje!

Just look at the actual sizes of these animals, yet look how they display the side-by-side skulls as being similar in size!

You don't think that maybe is to make the comparisons easier?

What a crock! I betcha most people wouldn’t even notice...they’d just say, “Yep, that’s evidence!”

But not you and Deeje, oh no - you two are so clever that you cracked the scam wide open!

Reminds me of the blue “Creation” book.

Reminds me of that time you presented an essay by two hack creationists on a right-wing fake news site after telling me to be careful because my bias was showing...

Hilarious!

And remember that time that you posted a list of textbooks that supposedly used Haeckel's drawings as evidence for evolution (that you copied from some dishonest YEC), and I PROVED that the list was unreliable, and you just ignored it? Yeah, that is some classic creationist stuff that you and Deeje have in common.

Oh it is even worse than I had remembered!!!


Most interesting.....

Those published between 1998 - 2004:

• Biggs, Kapicka & Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Glencoe, 1998)
• Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998)
• Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 4th Edition (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 5th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1999)
• Schraer & Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life, 7th Edition (1999)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 5th Edition (Prentice Hall, 2000)
• Padilla, Focus on Life Science, California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
• Donald & Judith Voet, Biochemistry, 3rd Edition (Wiley, 2004)
• Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts & Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, 1994)
• Starr & Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 8th Edition (Wadsworth, 1998)
• Guttman, Biology (McGraw-Hill, 1999)

I’m aware that some authors said they would remove the drawings in later editions. Still, Myers & Gould were right... being persistent in publishing fraudulence, is not supporting genuine science.

After I mentioned that you copy pasted this list from Wells, you replied:

I made the point.

Honestly, I haven't read Wells.
But I've read Axe, "Undeniable ". And "Darwin's Doubt", by Meyer.

They present all kind of evidence for ID. You should broaden your knowledge.

Weird - I read this by Wells:

Haeckel, Darwin, and Textbooks

and darned if I did not see this:

And the list omits the following textbooks published between 1998 and 2004 that do include Haeckel’s drawings or a re-drawn version of them:

• Biggs, Kapicka & Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Glencoe, 1998)
• Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998)
• Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 4th Edition (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 5th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1999)
• Schraer & Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life, 7th Edition (1999)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 5th Edition (Prentice Hall, 2000)
• Padilla, Focus on Life Science, California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
• Donald & Judith Voet, Biochemistry, 3rd Edition (Wiley, 2004)

Huh... But you did not provide a link in your original post, did you? And then you actually claimed that you had not even read Wells (who, by the way, also lied, at least about the Futuyma text)

What kind of person are you? Why do you think you should be taken seriously, given your history?