How Speciation Happens (yes it does)

[Hockeycowboy]

Evolutionary theory is as well established as the heliocentric theory even though new large trans_neptunian objects continue to be found and status of pluto or even our moon (is it a satellite or are we a binary planet system) continue to be debated. Just goes to show that even the most established theory continue to make progress. Very difficult to find even ONE accepted and established theory or field of science where many major ideas are not continuing to be refined and debated.

But not in every facet of the discipline! Are you aware of how extensive the dissent is among evolutionists? I doubt it... it's phenomenal! I've enjoyed the privilege of experiencing it myself! The evidence they uncover can be interpreted in many ways. I thank them, for opening my eyes.

 

[sayak83]

But not in every facet of the discipline! Are you aware of how extensive the dissent is among evolutionists? I doubt it... it's phenomenal! I've enjoyed the privilege of experiencing it myself! The evidence they uncover can be interpreted in many ways. I thank them, for opening my eyes.

I am quite aware of the extraordinary lack of dissent regarding the science and theory of evolution having worked with actual biologists and attended research seminars on the topic. There's far far more dissent on how gasoline burns in a car engine (there are 500 different models last I counted) than on how evolution works. You are not a scientist in a given field unless you have something original to contribute, and every scientist posits some new thing beyond the consensus and hope to validate it. The level of dissent is extraordinary in science since dissent is THE cardinal virtue. A layman going into a science conference on cars or air flight dynamics will be so unnerved that she may never ride one mistakenly thinking that we have no confidence on how they work. This is false. It's just a methodological thing where, following Socrates, we temporarily forget that we know a lot so that we can think through the first principles afresh. Conversely, I am horrified by the absolute lack of dissent in a church or a religious service or a political rally. I could, in a minute, think of 5 different ways each proposition in each sentence uttered by such speaker can be challenged and refuted and yet, nobody was jumping up and down to point them out! A scientist who is certain is not a scientist. But I am sorry but what passes of as knowledge or certainty in the outside world will not even pass muster as a reasonable speculation in the scientific community.

 

[Skwim]

But not in every facet of the discipline! Are you aware of how extensive the dissent is among evolutionists? I doubt it... it's phenomenal! I've enjoyed the privilege of experiencing it myself! The evidence they uncover can be interpreted in many ways. I thank them, for opening my eyes.

Are you aware of how extensive dissent is among Christian denominations? I doubt it... It's phenomenal! I've enjoyed the privilege of experiencing it myself! The evidence they uncover---principally from the Bible--can be interpreted in many ways. NOW, do you think this dissent should invalidate their common Christian conclusion that Jesus died for our sins and will bring salvation to the believer? ............. Well?

.

 

[sayak83]

Are you aware of how extensive dissent is among Christian denominations? I doubt it... It's phenomenal! I've enjoyed the privilege of experiencing it myself! The evidence they uncover---principally from the Bible--can be interpreted in many ways. NOW, do you think this dissent should invalidate their common Christian conclusion that Jesus died for our sins and will bring salvation to the believer? ............. Well?

.

They are shielded from all this, as they only ever go to their own church where everybody nods in agreement. I have never understood the point. Why would I ever go somewhere where everybody agrees with me. So absurdly pointless.

 

[Deeje]

Well, you are assuming that I have not studied the Bible. I have. But I have also studied the cultures around the Biblical culture and I realize how its views fit into the overall views of their time.

That is why I reject the Bible: I have studied it and found it wrong in detail.

And do you realize that just reading the Bible or studying it on an academic level achieves nothing?

According to the Bible's author, no one can come to an understanding of his truth as espoused by his chief representative on earth, without action from God himself. (John 6:44) Without God's spirit imparting the understanding, they are just words on a page. I have heard this scenario repeated so often.....it has an explanation. You can't study the Bible like you do a science textbook. It requires a spiritual understanding, not an academic one.

And you have to look at the bias shown by those from a religious viewpoint.

I agree. Those who rubbish science where it is well established, certainly don't have a leg to stand on. The "7 literal 24 hour days" of creation are not supported by the Genesis account at all. We are living on an old earth with the remains of creatures that existed long before man's arrival. This we know from geology and archaeology. What we cannot know from the "evidence" is that a slow process of evolution actually explains all the life forms on this planet. There are way too many co-incidental occurrences that do not line up with what science "knows", as opposed to what science "believes".

Making a division between the two is vital, if we are to get to the truth.

Scientists generally are interested in understanding. They do have pet theories, but science in general tests against those pet theories eventually.

They might differ about the details, but not about the validity of the theory itself. I believe it is flawed at its foundation. There is no solid evidence (apart from speculation and suggestion,) that a slow process of evolution is what the fossils are telling us.They could be saying something else entirely but are drowned out by what science wants the story to be. They interpret the evidence to fit the theory, not the other way around.
Interpreting evidence in science is almost as dodgy as interpreting the Bible among "Christians". What we accept as truth is virtually up to what the individual wants to believe.

Science does not have a pre-set bias against a creator. It simply hasn't found that hypothesis to be a productive one. In contrast, religious leaders have a *strong* bias against science.

I can't agree with that statement......I can see that the scientists here on RF have a definite pre-set bias against the existence of a Creator. Bias from the "Christian" perspective comes only when science tries to eliminate the Creator altogether. I am not a "creationist" (according to the standard view,) but a believer in an Intelligent Designer who masterfully designed the systems and the interactions in the ecology of this planet so that all things take place according to his purpose with very little intervention from him directly. He has designed "nature" to take care of itself and to implement a truly remarkable recycling system that keeps things as they should be. The world functioned very well, long before man appeared. Unfortunately, his presence here has pretty much messed everything up in the last century....thanks mostly to the innovations of science. Just about all forms of chemical pollution are the result of scientists formulating something to tackle a problem, only to create a bigger one.

The very idea that their viewpoints could be questioned is 'blasphemy' or 'immoral'. How convenient is that?

And you don't see in the response of the atheistic evolutionists here, the very same reaction? Question evolution and you might as well have committed the unforgivable sin. In fact, scientists seem to delight in implying that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is somehow unintelligent or uneducated.....
Its a sly form of emotional blackmail actually.

And who do you think gets more access to the average person? A scientist or a preacher?

Do you live in America? You might have a different answer to that question than me. I am Australian and it is a very secular nation; the people here are not very spiritual at all. Most kids are being raised with no religion whatsoever. They are indoctrinated with evolution from a young age at school and so by the time they leave, a Creator is the furthest thing from their minds.
Their science teachers would have way more influence on them than any preacher.

I, for one, strongly advocate the medicines, the transportation, the communication, the lighting, etc. Even the crime rates are way, way down. Far from falling apart, the world seems to be doing better than in previous centuries. yes, there are still problems: poverty, crime, hunger. But if you go back 300 years ALL of those were far, far worse. Plus the governments and churches then were dictatorial and evil.

Its funny how the scientists among us seem to be the ones most blinded to the plight of others in the world. We aren't living 300 years ago......we are living in an age where there is more access to education and understanding of the world than there ever was in ages past. We have less excuse for our behavior now than we have ever had in history....and yet here we are listening to the news talking about possible nuclear conflicts between two loose canons. Are you really that optimistic?

How can you all be so blind? Look around you...the churches and the governments are still evil, sending young men and women off to die in wars that are not fought on their own soil and are basically none of their business. What have they given their lives for? Nothing noble as far as I can see. They appear to be propping up oil and arms production for a wealthy minority, rather than doing any lasting good for humanity.

Worshiping scientists is just as bad as worshiping anything else. The closest I get to worship is a deep respect for truth and honesty. And I have found that religion is usually dishonest. And creationists, in particular, avoid the truth at every step.

Why do you assume that science is a promoter of truth and honesty? What if its all lies fabricated to push an agenda? What if you found out tomorrow that much of the research is fudged and rife with false conclusions?

I have to agree that religion can be as dishonest as science when it comes to interpretation of the truth....but there is a big difference between promoting the actual truth and supporting falsehood dressed up as truth. How do you know the difference? The only thing separating them is "belief".

On the contrary, scientific theories are challenged every day. And egos clash, having competing viewpoints. The observations and data are what resolve such ego conflicts.

No, I think its rather that the interpretation of the data that is accepted or rejected. There is nothing resolved if there is no real consensus. Sometimes its a case of who has the numbers or the most impressive argument...not who has an unpopular truth. The institutions of science can be cold and unyielding places for those who disagree.

I don't worship. I respect knowledge, truth, caring, honesty, and compassion. Too bad religion has so little of all of those.

If that is how you feel, then you have come in contact with the wrong religions. I know that man is designed to worship and has been doing it since his beginnings. Only in these later centuries has it become trendy to ditch God in favor of what men of note are saying, making 'gods' out of themselves. The hallowed halls of higher learning are now the temples of a widely accepted and relatively new religion....science.

You might be worshipping more than you realize.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you aware of how extensive dissent is among Christian denominations? I doubt it... It's phenomenal! I've enjoyed the privilege of experiencing it myself! The evidence they uncover---principally from the Bible--can be interpreted in many ways. NOW, do you think this dissent should invalidate their common Christian conclusion that Jesus died for our sins and will bring salvation to the believer? ............. Well?

.

That's pretty good, @Skwim! I give you credit. But your analogy is somewhat flawed: as new evidence pertaining to science is discovered, the new supplants the old, and basic explanations have changed. The Bible's words, haven't.... They've been the same for over 3,000 years (through examining DSS and other evidence), thanks to meticulous scribes and copyists. This fact in no way should be understood to support Christendom, only the Holy Scriptures.

(Christendom, on both sides of an issue at times, has encouraged their members to kill their brothers; the Bible says to love your brothers. Will that, "bring salvation"?)

Have evolutionists predicted that there would be these disagreements among its supporters?

No? The Bible did regarding its supporters!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

They are shielded from all this, as they only ever go to their own church where everybody nods in agreement. I have never understood the point. Why would I ever go somewhere where everybody agrees with me. So absurdly pointless.

Because, the explanations given from the Bible are reasonable and make sense! Besides, this agreement was to be expected among First-century Christians. Read 1 Corinthians 1:10, this applies to us. (Others? I haven't found any.) As JWs, we are united, worldwide. How is this achieved? It comes from Jehovah's spirit, His blessing. Not Jesus'. Jehovah reveals the truth -- Luke 10:21

Most of us came from other religions. We have searched.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you assume that science is a promoter of truth and honesty? What if its all lies fabricated to push an agenda? What if you found out tomorrow that much of the research is fudged and rife with false conclusions?

I'll have to get into my air conditoined car with its electric windows, GPS navigation, and satellite radio capability, drive around a little, and give that some thought. Maybe science is mostly a sham. I'll get back to you realtime from the other side of the world as soon as I come to a conclusion.

 

[Polymath257]

And do you realize that just reading the Bible or studying it on an academic level achieves nothing?

According to the Bible's author, no one can come to an understanding of his truth as espoused by his chief representative on earth, without action from God himself. (John 6:44) Without God's spirit imparting the understanding, they are just words on a page. I have heard this scenario repeated so often.....it has an explanation. You can't study the Bible like you do a science textbook. It requires a spiritual understanding, not an academic one.

In other words, you have to believe before the evidence is clear.

How convenient. I call BS.

I agree. Those who rubbish science where it is well established, certainly don't have a leg to stand on. The "7 literal 24 hour days" of creation are not supported by the Genesis account at all. We are living on an old earth with the remains of creatures that existed long before man's arrival. This we know from geology and archaeology. What we cannot know from the "evidence" is that a slow process of evolution actually explains all the life forms on this planet. There are way too many co-incidental occurrences that do not line up with what science "knows", as opposed to what science "believes".

Yes, we *can* know that a slow process is going on in many cases. We have enough fossils with accurate enough times to be able to say exactly that. Now, you can claim that those lines without fossil evidence do different things or that changes can happen rapidly. But the basics, that biological species change over geological time and that new 'types' originate also (mammals, birds, etc) is solid. The precise mechanisms are under discussion, but the evidence of evolutionary change is solid.

They might differ about the details, but not about the validity of the theory itself. I believe it is flawed at its foundation.

Yes, and everyone today agree that the Earth is in orbit around the sun and not vice versa. You can believe it is a flawed foundation, but without evidence of such, you will get nowhere.

There is no solid evidence (apart from speculation and suggestion,) that a slow process of evolution is what the fossils are telling us.They could be saying something else entirely but are drowned out by what science wants the story to be.

What you fail to see is that 'science' isn't a monolithic system. Scientists come from different background, with different priorities, and different initial beliefs. If a different 'story' fits the facts better, it will come out in the research.

But the story you provide is the one that was current 200 years ago *before* the evidence came out. it was *because* of the evidence that the original explorers were convinced that evolution happens. At first, they even attempted an alternative (Catastrophism) to allow for an element of the Biblical narrative to survive. Even that failed when more evidence came out.

You are simply wrong in your assessment that scientists want to deny God or the Bible. I would point to Francis Collins, who ran the Human Genome Project and is an evangelical Christian. he certainly has no beef against the message of the Bible *as a spiritual message*. But he also is forthright about the fact that evolution happened and has massive amounts of evidence for it. he points out that this can be seen in our very genes (the ones he mapped out). But he still believe in Jesus as a savior.

They interpret the evidence to fit the theory, not the other way around.
Interpreting evidence in science is almost as dodgy as interpreting the Bible among "Christians". What we accept as truth is virtually up to what the individual wants to believe.

And the fact that many scientists are believers in Christianity shows that understanding of evolution and belief in a deity can be done. but they would also strongly disagree with your arguments against science and evolution because they *know* from their own scientific research that you are wrong.

I can't agree with that statement......I can see that the scientists here on RF have a definite pre-set bias against the existence of a Creator. Bias from the "Christian" perspective comes only when science tries to eliminate the Creator altogether.

Once again, if that hypothesis is not required, I don't make it. Please give some *clear* evidence for a creator. Please give some clear evidence that evolution is false--enough to convince the evangelical Christian scientists who know it is real.

I am not a "creationist" (according to the standard view,) but a believer in an Intelligent Designer who masterfully designed the systems and the interactions in the ecology of this planet so that all things take place according to his purpose with very little intervention from him directly. He has designed "nature" to take care of itself and to implement a truly remarkable recycling system that keeps things as they should be. The world functioned very well, long before man appeared. Unfortunately, his presence here has pretty much messed everything up in the last century....thanks mostly to the innovations of science. Just about all forms of chemical pollution are the result of scientists formulating something to tackle a problem, only to create a bigger one.

OK, go ahead and believe that. I don't care. All I ask is that you accept the science that shows evolution to have happened. If you want to believe it was directed by a creator, go for it.

And you don't see in the response of the atheistic evolutionists here, the very same reaction? Question evolution and you might as well have committed the unforgivable sin. In fact, scientists seem to delight in implying that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is somehow unintelligent or uneducated.....

Sorry, but if you are making arguments that have been around for ages and have been answered many times and don't know the basics in the subject you are criticizing, then you are ignorant and uneducated. it is possible to educate yourself--at least learn what the other side says. Look at their arguments and learn why they believe the way they do. If you then think they have made a basic mistake, argue from *their* point of view to show this. if you think they are ignoring important evidence, present that evidence and a reason why you think it cannot be explained by the standard views. But be prepared to show you understand the standard views when you make that argument. If you do not, then, yes, you are ignorant.

Do you live in America? You might have a different answer to that question than me. I am Australian and it is a very secular nation; the people here are not very spiritual at all. Most kids are being raised with no religion whatsoever. They are indoctrinated with evolution from a young age at school and so by the time they leave, a Creator is the furthest thing from their minds.
Their science teachers would have way more influence on them than any preacher.

yes, I live in the US. I can guarantee preachers have more influence on more people than what is taught in schools.

Its funny how the scientists among us seem to be the ones most blinded to the plight of others in the world. We aren't living 300 years ago......we are living in an age where there is more access to education and understanding of the world than there ever was in ages past.

Yes, exactly. And how do you think that has been possible?

We have less excuse for our behavior now than we have ever had in history....and yet here we are listening to the news talking about possible nuclear conflicts between two loose canons. Are you really that optimistic?

My pessimism is based on the fact that too many people base their ideas on superstition and ego. Given the idiots in control and the ignorant that support them, I fear. But if we can get religious superstition and political oppression to decline, then we may have a chance.

How can you all be so blind? Look around you...the churches and the governments are still evil, sending young men and women off to die in wars that are not fought on their own soil and are basically none of their business. What have they given their lives for? Nothing noble as far as I can see. They appear to be propping up oil and arms production for a wealthy minority, rather than doing any lasting good for humanity.

And in spite of that, we no longer, at least in most countries, hang people from bridges as examples. We no longer have to deal with diseases like smallpox and polio. We have opportunities unlike any time in history. And the reason isn't because of religion. it is because of science.

Why do you assume that science is a promoter of truth and honesty? What if its all lies fabricated to push an agenda? What if you found out tomorrow that much of the research is fudged and rife with false conclusions?

Well, I know for certain that much research in sociology, psychology, and a good amount of medical research is rife with errors. Their standards are, frankly, quite poor. To accept a p<0.05 as 'significant' is insane. Such areas give science overall a bad name. But you don't see that in physics, or biology, or geology.

I have to agree that religion can be as dishonest as science when it comes to interpretation of the truth....but there is a big difference between promoting the actual truth and supporting falsehood dressed up as truth. How do you know the difference? The only thing separating them is "belief".

Not the *only* thing. The main thing that separates them is testability by those who disagree.

No, I think its rather that the interpretation of the data that is accepted or rejected. There is nothing resolved if there is no real consensus. Sometimes its a case of who has the numbers or the most impressive argument...not who has an unpopular truth. The institutions of science can be cold and unyielding places for those who disagree.

And yet, when the conclusions are wrong, they eventually come around. But dont' expect to see science adopting a flat earth, or a geocentric universe, or static species.

If that is how you feel, then you have come in contact with the wrong religions. I know that man is designed to worship and has been doing it since his beginnings. Only in these later centuries has it become trendy to ditch God in favor of what men of note are saying, making 'gods' out of themselves. The hallowed halls of higher learning are now the temples of a widely accepted and relatively new religion....science.

You might be worshipping more than you realize.

The difference is evidence and that science actually works.

 

[Skwim]

That's pretty good, @Skwim! I give you credit. But your analogy is somewhat flawed: as new evidence pertaining to science is discovered, the new supplants the old, and basic explanations have changed.

Yup, that's one of the beauties of science.

The Bible's words, haven't.... They've been the same for over 3,000 years (through examining DSS and other evidence), thanks to meticulous scribes and copyists.

Sorry, but this is simply not true.

Here is how Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of its 1971 original translation:

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”​

But here’s the same passage in 1995 in the updated current version of the NASB:

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”​

“Has a miscarriage” has been replaced with “gives birth prematurely,” (emphasis added) and "gives birth prematurely" ≠ "has a miscarriage."

You might also want to take a look at the following

​

Have evolutionists predicted that there would be these disagreements among its supporters?

Of course not because predictions are unnecessary. Disagreements are expected.

.

 

[sayak83]

Because, the explanations given from the Bible are reasonable and make sense! Besides, this agreement was to be expected among First-century Christians. Read 1 Corinthians 1:10, this applies to us. (Others? I haven't found any.) As JWs, we are united, worldwide. How is this achieved? It comes from Jehovah's spirit, His blessing. Not Jesus'. Jehovah reveals the truth -- Luke 10:21

Most of us came from other religions. We have searched.

You do understand that a prediction that "there will be people who will agree and there will be people who will dissent" is nothing more than tautology.? It's like saying some days will be cloudy and some days sunny. Duh.

Notice how the Christian ideology has a built in self-perpetuation system. If you have a lot of adherents it's the "more descendants than grains of sand" prophecy time. But if you are few, it's not because the belief has become such a blatant falsehood that no reasonable person can hold it. No it's rather the "end times" where Satan has corrupted the world and its reason and its time for the desperate few to double down and persevere with even greater fanaticism. It's just such a transparent self reinforcing propaganda system, I am amazed that believers are blind to it.

 

[Polymath257]

That's pretty good, @Skwim! I give you credit. But your analogy is somewhat flawed: as new evidence pertaining to science is discovered, the new supplants the old, and basic explanations have changed. The Bible's words, haven't.... They've been the same for over 3,000 years (through examining DSS and other evidence), thanks to meticulous scribes and copyists. This fact in no way should be understood to support Christendom, only the Holy Scriptures.
!

Actually, the words have also. For example, the whole New Testament was added after that time. But much more importantly, the question of which books should be included has been hotly disputed over time. If you go back to 200 AD, there were many New Testament texts that were considered canonical by different groups. It was only later that *one* group selected those that would become your Bible. The other groups were, of course, mercilessly persecuted. The Old Testament was gathered together much earlier, but even the OT talks of texts that were considered canonical but are not in the current Bible.

The earliest versions of the book of Mark do not have anything about the resurrection. They end just before it.

So, yes, the Bible and the books within it have changed quite a bit over time.

 

[Deeje]

In other words, you have to believe before the evidence is clear.

How convenient.

No, that is not what I am saying. The Bible indicates that we have to have the right heart attitude and humbly seek God on his terms, rather than shake our fist at him and demand that he prove himself to us. He reveals himself only to those who have the qualities he is looking for as citizens of his Kingdom, soon to come. The evidence, once it is revealed is unmistakable. Why do you think our belief is so strong? Yet it is nothing tangible that we can point to....nothing to test.....we just know. Conviction is a strange thing actually....very hard to quantify.

Yes, we *can* know that a slow process is going on in many cases. We have enough fossils with accurate enough times to be able to say exactly that.

I have examined a lot of the evidence for myself but without the preconceptions. The evidence is hollow IMO. If it weren't for the diagrams and the computer generated images and detailed explanations, what would you actually have to show us?

Now, you can claim that those lines without fossil evidence do different things or that changes can happen rapidly. But the basics, that biological species change over geological time and that new 'types' originate also (mammals, birds, etc) is solid. The precise mechanisms are under discussion, but the evidence of evolutionary change is solid.

Is it? Or could it just have a different explanation? We each have a bias, so we each see what we want to see in the evidence....

Let's take whale evolution as an example....

How does science know what those creatures looked like? Whole, preserved fossils are extremely rare so the way this diagram is illustrated to someone unacquainted with the facts, they would take that as an example of what science "knows".
But this is what science "thinks" it knows, with no way to prove that these creatures are even related let alone examples of evolution. I can see that these creatures could just as easily have been created by an Intelligent Designer at different periods of time, using the same biological materials. I believe that creation was a slow and deliberate process, by a master craftsman....not something "poofed" into existence by a celestial magician with the wave of his hand in a mere week.
What appears to be one story, when you examine the real evidence, can have another explanation altogether and be just as feasible.

Yes, and everyone today agree that the Earth is in orbit around the sun and not vice versa. You can believe it is a flawed foundation, but without evidence of such, you will get nowhere.

Well, the truth is, we are not trying to get anywhere but at the truth. This truth is not something that has a scientific test because there is no test for evolution either. All the scientists can say is that they "believe" it happened and present their diagrams explaining how they think it "might have" taken place.

Please see Post #75 on NASA's explanation of the possibility of water being on other planets....and "could there be life?" How Speciation Happens (yes it does)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Bible indicates that we have to have the right heart attitude and humbly seek God on his terms,.....

And, be willing to seek the right God, I might add.

That was what I was trying to convey, in the post where I referenced Luke 10:21. (It went right over their heads, it seems.)

 

[Deeje]

I'll have to get into my air conditoined car with its electric windows, GPS navigation, and satellite radio capability, drive around a little, and give that some thought. Maybe science is mostly a sham. I'll get back to you realtime from the other side of the world as soon as I come to a conclusion.

You are talking about advances in technology, what has that got to do with evolution? I have no issues with technology except perhaps that I am suspicious of the radiation levels we are all exposed to with our mobile devices.

You act as if we are anti-science...I assure you that we appreciate the advances of many branches of science as much as the next person. What we question are the unproven theories that masquerade as fact....the theories that place human intellect and accomplishment above that of the Creator. If you have no time for him, you can be sure that he has no time for you. Why would he?

 

[Deeje]

Sorry, but this is simply not true.

Here is how Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of its 1971 original translation:

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”​

But here’s the same passage in 1995 in the updated current version of the NASB:

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”​

“Has a miscarriage” has been replaced with “gives birth prematurely,” (emphasis added) and "gives birth prematurely" ≠ "has a miscarriage."

This made me smile.....

Exodus 21:22-25 Complete Jewish Bible:

“If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges. 23 But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound and bruise for bruise."

YLT:
"`And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;

23 and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life,


24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Orthodox Jewish Bible:
"If men fight, and hurt an isha harah (pregnant woman), so that she gives birth prematurely but not with any injury; he shall be surely punished, according as the ba’al haisha will assess a fine upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any ason (harm, fatality) follow, then thou shalt take nefesh for nefesh,


24 Ayin for ayin, shen for shen, yad for yad, regel for regel,


25 Burn for burn, wound for wound, chaburah (stripe laceration) for chaburah."

ESV:
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

"Have a miscarriage" or "give birth prematurely" mean the same thing if you read the verse in context.

It depends upon how far along the gestation is as to how viable the unborn child may be. With no way to keep a premature baby alive, the death of this child warranted the death penalty for the ones who caused its demise. This proves that an unborn child is a living human being in God's eyes, whose life was precious enough to be compensated for.....a life for life.

You might also want to take a look at the following

​

​

What was this supposed to prove? I saw no evidence to back up anything that was said.
We already know about the early tampering and it was rectified.

Copying of the Bible was done by professional scribes. These were called Sopherim, a term apparently derived from the Hebrew verb “to count.” Why? ‘The early scholars were called Sofʹrim,’ according to the Talmud, ‘because they counted all the letters of the Law.’
The letters in each new manuscript were carefully counted and the number had to be identical with the original. What care! Just consider the toil to count every letter. It is reported that they counted 815,140 Hebrew letters in the Scriptures. Every care was taken to prevent corruption of the text.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were parts of the Bible that date back into the second century B.C.E., 1,000 years earlier than the oldest copies available up to that time. How did they compare with the more recent copies?

Millar Burrows, who worked with the scrolls for years, analyzing carefully their contents, stated this conclusion:

“Many of the differences between the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text [the Bible manuscripts in the ninth century] can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text.
“It is a matter for wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.” (The Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 109, 303, 304)

As for Jesus saying "forgive them Father for they know not what they do".....he was clearly NOT talking about the Pharisees who orchestrated the campaign to have him put to death. Jesus had already sentenced them to "gehenna". No forgiveness was possible for those whom he said the devil had spawned. (John 8:44; Matthew 23:33)

It was the Roman soldiers who impaled Jesus, not the Pharisees.....they merely pressured Pilate to have it carried out.

 

[Darkstorn]

In other words, you have to believe before the evidence is clear.

No, that is not what I am saying. The Bible indicates...

The evidence, once it is revealed is unmistakable.

So... That is EXACTLY what you are saying. For you to see any evidence in the Bible, you need to believe its empty unsubstantiated claims.

You are being hypocritical.

 

[gnostic]

Which are exactly the beginning points of science. But science also realizes that the human senses are limited and often faulty. So we attempt to find more objective methods for learning about the world.

Yes, agreed.

It is why we used technology to develop devices and machines that can more accurately or precisely detect and measure what we cannot do.

Such devices are supposed to reduce human errors.

 

[Polymath257]

No, that is not what I am saying. The Bible indicates that we have to have the right heart attitude and humbly seek God on his terms, rather than shake our fist at him and demand that he prove himself to us. He reveals himself only to those who have the qualities he is looking for as citizens of his Kingdom, soon to come. The evidence, once it is revealed is unmistakable. Why do you think our belief is so strong? Yet it is nothing tangible that we can point to....nothing to test.....we just know. Conviction is a strange thing actually....very hard to quantify.

If there is nothing to point to, then it is not and cannot be scientific. If there is no way to measure it, it is immediately disqualified as science. If you have to accept on faith, then you are not skeptical enough to really find out how the universe works.

I have examined a lot of the evidence for myself but without the preconceptions. The evidence is hollow IMO. If it weren't for the diagrams and the computer generated images and detailed explanations, what would you actually have to show us?

Well, the actual fossils. The dates for the strata they are from. The genetic studies showing connections between the proteins in different species. The actual scientific studies and papers that you can get in any research library.

I think a big part of your problem here is that you have mostly read popular accounts rather than actual research papers. And, I'm sorry, but the popular accounts are uniformly poor. This is a common problem in science because the journalists tend not to understand what is being said, so when they write articles, they get a lot of the details wrong. They also like to use the 'artists conceptions' because the actual fossils require more training to understand.

Is it? Or could it just have a different explanation? We each have a bias, so we each see what we want to see in the evidence....

On the contrary, *you* have a bias and see what you want to see. Scientists also have their individual biases, but then debates and testing happen to determine who was actually correct. Unlike in religion, science doesn't start with the conclusion.

Let's take whale evolution as an example....

How does science know what those creatures looked like? Whole, preserved fossils are extremely rare so the way this diagram is illustrated to someone unacquainted with the facts, they would take that as an example of what science "knows".

And this is a perfect example of what I was saying. The certainly did NOT appear in a research journal. It was a populant written by journalists for a public that, frankly, doesn't have the training to distinguish a cetacean from a miacid. These artists conceptions are useful for communicating to the public, but actual scientists don't give such pictures much weight.

But this is what science "thinks" it knows, with no way to prove that these creatures are even related let alone examples of evolution.

But by using comparative anatomy, it *is* possible to show they are related. Now, the markers on the bones showing such relations aren't going to be in the pictures like the one you have. But they are on the fossils and a great deal of debate exists in the research literature concerning what each bump on the bones means and how certain the conclusions are.

I can see that these creatures could just as easily have been created by an Intelligent Designer at different periods of time, using the same biological materials.

And if you want to believe that an Intelligent Designer directed the evolution we see, that is no problem whatsoever. But, to think that species are wiped out and replaced wholesale by similar species consistently throughout the fossil record is being a bit silly. Why not simply accept that species can change over time gaining new characteristics? Again, if you want to say that some deity directs this, we can look at the statistics, but that isn't a testable hypothesis and you have then gone past the realm of science.

I believe that creation was a slow and deliberate process, by a master craftsman....not something "poofed" into existence by a celestial magician with the wave of his hand in a mere week.
What appears to be one story, when you examine the real evidence, can have another explanation altogether and be just as feasible.

THis can also be debated. A master craftsman would not have designed some of the jury-rigged constructs seen in the real world. But mutation and natural selection would.

Well, the truth is, we are not trying to get anywhere but at the truth. This truth is not something that has a scientific test because there is no test for evolution either. All the scientists can say is that they "believe" it happened and present their diagrams explaining how they think it "might have" taken place.

When the weight of the evidence points to a single direction, it is silly to say the truth is in the opposite direction. ALL of the questions you have raised were debated 200 years ago when the fossil evidence was being first discovered. Even at that time, and among scientists that believed in a deity and believed in a Biblical flood (initially), it was clear that the facts on the ground didn't correspond to the theological positions.

Please see Post #75 on NASA's explanation of the possibility of water being on other planets....and "could there be life?" How Speciation Happens (yes it does)

Yes, to have liquid water, you have to be in the temperature range from 32F to 212F. Outside of that range, water is either frozen into ice or vaporized into steam. To keep at that temperature requires an energy source. The sun is the primary energy source for the solar system, so liquid water tends to be at a certain distance from the sun. And the Earth is in that range. But, on Europa, there the tidal forces for its orbit with Jupiter provide the necessary energy and the current evidence *suggests* that there is extensive liquid water there.

But the sun isn't the only star with planets. Far from it. And each star has a 'Goldilocks zone' that allows for liquid water. We have even found planets in those zones around other stars. Now, at this time we do not know if those planets do, in fact, have liquid water (it is rather difficult to determine this at such distances), but given the fact that water is common in the universe, it is quite likely. And yes, that increases the possibility that life exists there. Nobody knows whether that is the case. But the chances have gone up considerably.

 

[Polymath257]

And, be willing to seek the right God, I might add.

That was what I was trying to convey, in the post where I referenced Luke 10:21. (It went right over their heads, it seems.)

In other words, you have to believe *first* in order to be convinced.

Again, how convenient.