Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

Two examples of where science got it right and was self correcting. It was not biblical scholarship that corrected things.
As we have seen it is not 761, it is more like 100. In any case it is a number so small as to be lost in the noise of the signal. But most importantly it is a number that is dropping not rising.
Real science results in academic consensus. There is academic consensus (at one level at least) concerning the Big Bang, there is absolute academic consensus about Piltdown Man, there is academic consensus concerning the Origin of Species.

No, you are misunderstanding them and quoting them out of context. You do no agree with what Raup advocates, you just pretend that his views coincide with yours when they, in fact, do not.

When faced with the exposure of his underlying lie and his inability to find "plenty" of scientists who disagree with evolution, Guy switches to another lie, a quote mining of David Raup. We are faced with the standard creationist approach of lies piled on lies piled on lies. The Raup quote mine is neatly debunked by Evan Yeung, exposing Guy's exposition for the prevarication that it is:

On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

This was originally published in response to a Talk Origins Archive feedback question in June of 2001 (scroll down). It has been slightly modified.

Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (p. 25, emphasis mine)

Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.

And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)

The transitions Raup seems to be talking about, in the quote creationists use, are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf). Not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about. This seems to be the case here as well:

There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . . (p. 23, emphasis mine)

Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are favorite targets for this creationist tactic because their hypothesis of punctuated equilibria is intended to explain why, from a biological point of view, we should expect species level transitions to be rare in the fossil record. Thus in their writings they frequently state the problem(s) they are attempting to solve. Creationists quote them stating the problems but not the solutions they propose. This seems to be the nature of the quote they have taken from Raup. The beginning of the very next paragraph after the one they quote tends to confirm this:

Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works. (p. 25)

He then moves on to the fossil record:

​

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent. (p. 26)

He then goes on to discuss natural selection versus other possible explanatory mechanisms and how they might relate to the fossil record. He also discusses the effects of historical contingency as it relates to extinction pointing out that sometimes species may become extinct due more to "bad luck" than bad genes (this by the way is the basis for Raup's 1991 book Extinction - Bad Genes or Bad Luck?). Raup concludes this article stating:

The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance! (p. 29)

Not particularly damning. Perhaps the more interesting question is where do creationists get the idea that lists of such (out of context) quotations are a valid form of scientific argument?

For Raup's views on creationist arguments I suggest you look up one or both of the following:

"Geology and Creationism", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Mar. 1983, Vol. 54 No. 3 pp. 16-25)

"The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism" in Scientists Confront Creationism (1983), Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor), pp. 147-162​

The biological sciences equivalent of the old Murphy's 3 Law of Engineering: "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."

​

Raup was not arguing against evolution, he was supporting punctuated equilibrium when it comes to evolutionary rates. Guy presents a non sequitur, that can be likened to arguing that there are no airplanes because it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light.

I know I have addressed this exact same quote mine at least once before in a discussion with Guy. And here it is, yet again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science does brainwash. Otherwise it would not be taught in schools as an established fact, when all it has to "prove" itself is educated guessing. It would not scorn and penalize children for having a different view. We have no choice but to educate our children...its the law of the land and I have no objection to that. But the only way to counteract the teaching of evolution is to educate our children to see the flaws. Home schooling is an option, but it is no open to all.

By the sound of it, you've probably never taken a science class. You've claimed over and over the language of science is too soft and suggestive for your liking and now you're claiming that science takes some hardline brainwashing type of position. Make up your mind!

Are you equally as incensed when teachers have the nerve to tell children the answer they've given to a math problem is incorrect or when they lose a mark for misspelling a word on a vocabulary test, just for "having a different view?"

I never said it had done no good....I said that for every good thing it has accomplished, there are many more evil things it has produced....not the least of which would be atomic weapons.

Science is quick to make available for profit, many of its 'inventions' but long term detrimental effects have not been thoroughly investigated. The invention of plastics for example, began as a boon for every household, but now the planet is drowning in plastic waste where people are either too lazy to recycle, or have no means to do so.
Check it out and tell me how wonderful plastic is.....?

plastic waste islands - Google Search

Chemical products too have been used as pesticides and artificial fertilizers and the like......what has been the result? More production but less nutrition. Poor quality, mineral deficient soil produces low quality mineral deficient food. Mineral deficiency results in poor health and a breeding ground for disease......I could go on for pages about the inhumane farming practices in livestock production, but what would be the point?



As a JW, we do not participate in political decisions but remain completely neutral in those things.
Jesus commanded his followers to be "NO part of this world", so any political meddling is counter to the teachings of the one the meddlers claim to serve. Jesus never once recommended overthrowing the Roman government, (which was oppressing his people) or meddling in its decisions, but he was himself a victim of Jewish influence upon it. The Romans executed Jesus but only because the Jews threatened to bring charges of sedition against Pilate if he did not acceded to their wishes.



This is an assumption, since no one knows why savants are imbued with pockets of genius in certain areas whilst being deficient in others.

Savants, I believe are a throwback to the genius capabilities that all humans could have had as a general rule if Adam had not lost his physical and mental perfection. "Sin" is an often misunderstood term, conjuring up some cruel dictator who punishes people for being 'sinful' when they see the whole scenario as his fault. That could not be further from the truth. Understanding what happened in Eden, explains everything that has transpired ever since. But don't look to Christendom for answers, because they lost the plot so long ago that they don't have any logical answers either, which then sends people looking for answers in other areas. Evolution seems to be an alternative, but it is devoid of any satisfying answers to those BIG questions.

Science cannot answer those questions that most ordinary people have.....'Why are we here?' 'What is the purpose of life?' 'Where are we going?' 'Does death end it all?' 'Will I ever see my lost loved ones again?'

Why do you think people want the answers to those questions?

There is a part of the human psyche that needs to know.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think science is required to answer such questions? Maybe purpose and meaning are what we make them for ourselves.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

@Sapiens, I enjoyed reading several of Richard Dawkins's books. However I see no merit in attacking the beliefs of others, nor in adopting a condescending attitude to them. It may be that his adherents are quoting out of context, but I've seen many religious 'moderates' have their beliefs ridiculed by people influenced by Dawkins.
If you believe I'm lying, that is for you to demonstrate rather than just throw out an unfounded accusation.

I don't think science would have to use such language if it was indisputable truth that they presented about their "evidence".
The language they use is not just "Moderate and defensible".....it is simply NOT the language of fact....it is the language of suggestion. "It is suggested that".....or....."this leads us to believe" is hardly a statement to bet your life on....is it?

It's like those ads on TV that say that a product "helps" with an implied benefit that really isn't there. Or the ones that "suggest" that a product is very good for achieving certain ends and when you get it home, you realize that its just rubbish.

If you have to sell something with a diagram and lots of conjecture, then how can it be true? There is no way to prove that evolution ever took place. The evidence presented could just as easily be attributed to an Intelligent Designer. There is no absolute proof for either view.
A fa

I first met Richard Dawkins when he taught my animal behavior class, I have never found him or his scientific writings to be anything except polite and correct. As to his popular pieces, they tend to be a bit stronger, but that (I feel) is necessary and warranted. Correcting stupidity and/or ignorance is not condescension, it is correcting stupidity and/or ignorance. Condescension is assuming without proof or argument that people who disagree with you are stupid and/or ignorant. In my experience Dawkins either accomplishes those goals or demonstrates, at the onset, that they are a given.

He is not responsible for the actions of others, but I've seen religious 'moderates' who well deserved to have their beliefs shredded. If you choose to call that ridicule, that's your trip and just because you choose to suffer fools gladly does not mean anyone else should be required to do so.

I did demonstrate Guy's guilt. I got my replies crossed, I never meant to say that you were lying, I offer you abject apologies.

t, not a "might be".

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane" Dawkins

Nothing is less scientific than this sort of name calling. It only betrays that your position is based on passion more than cool headed science, and that you can never change your mind, no matter the evidence, or you become all the things you called others.

That's why Hoyle was obliged to reject the Big Bang all his life, after mocking it as 'religious pseudoscience'

There are far more accomplished scientists than Dawkins, who are skeptical of Darwinism on a scientific basis, and have no need for name calling

Similarly, I don't think evolutionists are ignorant, stupid, or insane, I used to be an ardent believer, it's a very attractive theory- superficially. So was classical physics. But science has come a long way in 150 years. Darwinism does not fit with scientific observation today as it did then, but it is dearly loved and defended with great passion.

 

[Big_TJ]

So you believe that all that was accomplished during the creative "days" were just the great magician "poofing" things into existence, instantaneously in 24 hour periods? You really see Adam naming all the animals as God brought them to him.....in all probability thousands of them....having him observe their characteristics and deciding on an appropriate descriptive name for them all?...... and the snake fooling Eve into eating the fruit.....and then Adam being talked into joining the rebellion....and then realizing they were naked and sewing fig leaves together....and God making long garments of skin before kicking them out of Eden?
Good grief! I am tired just thinking about all that.

The length of the creative days, if you read the narrative, is really not that important. Genesis was not written as a science textbook. It was written to a relatively simple people to whom a detailed scientific explanation would have been useless. God keeps the KISS principle in mind when discussing things related to the outworking of his will. It is more important that we understand the big picture, not the pixels that make it up...that could all come later, once the issues raised by the rebellion had been dealt with, and God's original purpose was restored.

You are of course, free to believe whatever you wish.....I'll stick to what makes more logical sense to me.

No Deeje; I am not stating what I believe here. I am just stating what is supposed to be a factual statement - it has nothing to do with your interpretation of Genesis or anyone's belief. What I stated is that, [almost] everytime you see the word "day" with a number before it, it (the word "day") [almost] ALWAYS has a literal meaning. I don't need you to tell me about JW belief, I was involved in that movement when I was younger so I am aware of several of your belief. What I would be interested in is whether you can provide ANY evidence, biblically or otherwise, where the word "day" is preceded by a number, and the "day" would not be interpreted literally. Thanks!

 

[Big_TJ]

We love missing the point especially when there was no real point to miss.
Thanks or the compliment though.

So you believe that all that was accomplished during the creative "days" were just the great magician "poofing" things into existence, instantaneously in 24 hour periods? You really see Adam naming all the animals as God brought them to him.....in all probability thousands of them....having him observe their characteristics and deciding on an appropriate descriptive name for them all?...... and the snake fooling Eve into eating the fruit.....and then Adam being talked into joining the rebellion....and then realizing they were naked and sewing fig leaves together....and God making long garments of skin before kicking them out of Eden?
Good grief! I am tired just thinking about all that.

And... why are you limiting the ability of your supposedly all-powerful God?? Who are you to suggest that God isn't powerful enough to accomplish all those in 24-hour days? In fact, why would an all-powerful God even need 24 hours to accomplish anything?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't think science would have to use such language if it was indisputable truth that they presented about their "evidence".
The language they use is not just "Moderate and defensible".....it is simply NOT the language of fact....it is the language of suggestion. "It is suggested that".....or....."this leads us to believe" is hardly a statement to bet your life on....is it?

It's like those ads on TV that say that a product "helps" with an implied benefit that really isn't there. Or the ones that "suggest" that a product is very good for achieving certain ends and when you get it home, you realize that its just rubbish.

If you have to sell something with a diagram and lots of conjecture, then how can it be true? There is no way to prove that evolution ever took place. The evidence presented could just as easily be attributed to an Intelligent Designer. There is no absolute proof for either view.
A fact is a fact, not a "might be".

This is very true, and when you have empirical, demonstrable science, you also have no need to call people names. If a theory is based on the best science currently available, not merely passionate ideology- then you remain happily open to, curious about, other possibilities, progressing science.

 

[Big_TJ]

I was answering a question, and my answer is perfectly logical, given the question.



Organic evolution is unsubstantiated too. There is absolutely no solid verifiable evidence that it ever took place. All you have is "interpretation" of evidence that is made to fit a presupposed scenario. I have as much evidence based on our supposition.

Deeje.

I tried this with MANY JWs and they failed miserably; let me see if you can do better You are here bashing "Organic Evolution" which suggest that you know/understand, even at the basic level, what is "evolution" in a biological sense. So, before we start seriously consider your position, please outline to us what meaning are you using for "Evolution." [Hint... hopefully you are not using the one printed in the JW book "Life, how do we get here...."

Thanks!

 

[gnostic]

Lemaitre was one of a handful who dissented against the atheist preference for static/ steady state models of the universe

Does lying come naturally for you?

That was a load of bulls.

As I have pointed out to you before in other threads, Lemaître never made his BB hypothesis about theism or about Christianity or about creationism.

And another thing that I have always pointed out to you, atheists were never against the Big Bang theory, because some of the earlier physicists were non-theists (atheists and at least one agnostic that I know of).

If you know anything about the history of the development of Big Bang as a theory, Lemaître wasn't even the 1st physicist to write about the expanding universe model.

Alexander Friedmann, a Russian physicist had actually was the first to present this concept 5 years earlier (1922), before Lemaître (1927).

And another Russian physicist of the Big Bang, George Gamow, had also contributed in 1948, with his Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), and with American physicists, Alpher and Herman, they had predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). This radiation was discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson.

Ralph Alpher's background and family was Jewish, but he was agnostic.

The Big Bang theory wasn't a competition between atheism and theism.

The Big Bang cosmology was was never propriety of theism or Christianity. When Pope Pius XII (1951) tried to proclaim this theory to validate Roman Catholic, Pius took back his declaration, when Lemaître wrote to him that BB is physics/science, and has nothing to with god, theism and religion.

I have repeatedly informed you about Friedmann (atheist), Gamow (atheist), Alpher (agnostic) and Herman, but you tends to ignore them and their contributions to the Big Bang cosmology.

If 2 early and important physicists being atheists (Friedmann & Gamow) had actually contributed to the Big Bang theory, then your repeated claims that atheists were flocking to Hoyle's Steady State model is false.

And lastly, Fred Hoyle didn't presented his Steady State model until 1948, 21 years after Lemaître published his Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom (1927).

So how could Lemaître's paper possibly be challenging Hoyle's competing hypothesis when Hoyle didn't write his piece yet?​

So your statement is false, and nothing more than straw-man. Why are you lying to us?

For me to inform you, then you should know better to state the Big Bang theory being theistic science, only demonstrate your dishonesty.

So stop saying that Lemaître is fighting for theism. And stop lying that atheists had only supported Hoyle's debunked Steady State model.

 

[gnostic]

Similarly, I don't think evolutionists are ignorant, stupid, or insane, I used to be an ardent believer, it's a very attractive theory- superficially. So was classical physics. But science has come a long way in 150 years. Darwinism does not fit with scientific observation today as it did then, but it is dearly loved and defended with great passion.

Again, you are lying.

Today, most biologists still accept Evolution today, and Darwin's theory on Natural Selection has already been corrected and updated decades ago.

And another thing, what has (classical) physics to do with biology?

Evolution is only about biology. It has nothing to do with cosmology like the Big Bang theory. You keep bringing up astrophysics and physical cosmology in debate between evolution and creationism.

 

[Big_TJ]

By the sound of it, you've probably never taken a science class. .

You can't really blame Deeje .. well, sort of.... His religion discourage higher education so it seems like the congregants are sort of sticking to this discouragement.

 

[Olinda]

I first met Richard Dawkins when he taught my animal behavior class, I have never found him or his scientific writings to be anything except polite and correct. As to his popular pieces, they tend to be a bit stronger, but that (I feel) is necessary and warranted.

I'll defer as I've never met him.

Correcting stupidity and/or ignorance is not condescension, it is correcting stupidity and/or ignorance. Condescension is assuming without proof or argument that people who disagree with you are stupid and/or ignorant. In my experience Dawkins either accomplishes those goals or demonstrates, at the onset, that they are a given.

There's a time, place and optimal approach for everything.

If you choose to call that ridicule, that's your trip and just because you choose to suffer fools gladly does not mean anyone else should be required to do so.

I'll take that as an undeserved compliment.

apologies.

Accepted.

 

[Olinda]

I don't think science would have to use such language if it was indisputable truth that they presented about their "evidence".

You have been told many times on this thread that science does not claim to present 'indisputable truth'.

The language they use is not just "Moderate and defensible".....it is simply NOT the language of fact....it is the language of suggestion. "It is suggested that".....or....."this leads us to believe" is hardly a statement to bet your life on....is it?

But who is asked to bet their life on it? That said, when a scientific theory is backed by a lot of evidence, it is foolish to disregard it. Would you jump off a roof because the Theory of Gravity is not touted as 'indisputable truth'?

If you have to sell something with a diagram and lots of conjecture, then how can it be true?

Again, you have been corrected on this more than once. Repeating it is not engaging in honest debate.

There is no way to prove that evolution ever took place.

There is no need to. It does not mean that the huge accumulation of evidence for it must be totally disregarded.

A fact is a fact, not a "might be".

Until it is replaced by 'new light', of course.

 

[Deeje]

When I looked back to see the "inconsistencies", I realized that you were quoting two different references to "Babylon", so sorry about that.

OK...glad we got that sorted.

BTW, the feminine form only is found in Peter's epistle, not in Revelation, and that does make a difference in what we were talking about in that regard. The mistake you're making is ignoring what the 2nd century, pre-Constantine church, knew and believed in.

Not sure why you think a city shouldn't be referred to in the feminine gender....other cities also were called "she".
Other languages render words in the masculine and feminine gender that are neither male or female genetically. Its just the way their grammar works.

Gender in grammar often makes no sense at all.

Babylon the great is portrayed as an immoral woman....a prostitute who has relations with the kings and merchants of this world.

I do not take very much notice of anything that came from "the church" from the second century onward. The Bible canon ends with John's Revelation for a reason. The "weeds" were already sprouting before the death of the apostles.

This is in large part one of the problems people often have when they read their handy-dandy English-language Bible with little to no knowledge of the immediate history from the 1st and 2nd century, plus no knowledge of Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic, as well as not being much aware of the cultural milieu of 1st century eretz Israel. This is why theologians, who specialize in these areas are so important. But even there one has to be careful because many of these theologians often are tainted by having a partisan agenda.

Exactly.....scripture needs to interprets scripture...and that is what should be the case. The Bible does not contradict itself...it is man made doctrines that contradict the Bible. Which is why JW's threw everything out that the scriptures do not teach. We stuck strictly to what Christ and his apostles taught as Christian truth.

While I'm at it, let me just say that the most impressive book I have ever read on the early church was "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican). The book is out of print, although I did see a used copy at Amazon, but it was quite expensive. Hanson is very even-handed in his approach, but what makes his book so valuable is his heavy use of 2nd century (again, pre-Constantine) materials from the early church patriarchs and sages, which he very thoroughly quotes and footnotes.

Having been raised Anglican, I am always suspicious of any church-educated man and his personal take on scripture. There are countless such men (and some women) who have led people down a path that they have created, but still held onto those basic core doctrines of Christendom....the trinity, immortality of the soul, and hellfire.
JW's beliefs were not the result of one man's opinion. There were a group of men from different denominations who all felt driven to a common goal....to go back to the Bible and see if Christendom was teaching the truth. How far it had deviated astounded them and through a process of elimination, they gradually examined all things and shed all those false teachings that crept in over the centuries.

What you have admitted to above is your use of the term "doctrine", which is the "political-correctness" that I was talking about, and which defies what the gospels says. One is not "saved", according to the gospels, by having p.c. doctrine, but by believing in God and in Jesus and living out their lives accordingly.

What has political correctness got to do with Christ's teachings? Either a doctrine is from Jesus' teachings or it isn't.

Christian doctrine is clearly stated in the scriptures. Any deviation from those teachings is to be avoided.

What does it mean to "believe"? Clearly it is more than a mere acknowledgment that Jesus is the Christ and offered himself for our sins.
If the demons "believe" and yet are condemned, then what does it entail? When you say to live "accordingly", you are saying that more is required than mere belief. To "live" as a Christian, one must obey the Christ in everything.
That means no unrepentant sinner can sit in church, shoulder to shoulder with faithful ones without reproof or discipline from the shepherds. Does that happen in the churches?

What do Paul's words indicate should be done in that case?

1 Cor 5:9-13:
"In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”

The shepherds are under obligation to discipline the erring one....why? To move them to repentance and save them from God's judgment that is sure to come.....and to protect the rest of the flock from a bad influence. If they are negligent in their role, then God will demand an accounting from them too.

Hebrews 13:17
"Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you."

It's not whether Jesus was crucified on a stake or cross (it was clearly the latter),

It may well have been the latter, although the Romans used a variety of configurations as their instruments of torture.
The Greek word "stauros" is often translated "cross" but according to Wiki....

"In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century BC, stauros meant an upright stake, pole,[5][6] or piece of paling, "on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground."[7]

In the literature of that time, it never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone.[8].......Speaking specifically about the σταυρός of Jesus, early Christian writers unanimously suppose it to have been an upright stake. Thus Justin Martyr said it was prefigured in the Jewish paschal lamb: "That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the upright beam (σταυρός) which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the stake (σταυρός). For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."[9]

Regardless of the configuration of the torture stake of the Christ, it is a bizarre thing to make a replica of the instrument used to put someone you love to death, and wear it around your neck or have it adorn your place of worship. We are told NOT to make religious images at all. (Exodus 20:4-5)

or whether there's 144,000 special people (bad interpretation anyway)

Revelation 14:1-5:
"Then I saw, and look! the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who have his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. 2 I heard a sound coming out of heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; and the sound that I heard was like singers who accompany themselves by playing on their harps. 3 And they are singing what seems to be a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders, and no one was able to master that song except the 144,000, who have been bought from the earth. 4 These are the ones who did not defile themselves with women; in fact, they are virgins. These are the ones who keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes. These were bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb, 5 and no deceit was found in their mouths; they are without blemish."

There they are 144,000 clearly seen with Christ who is in heaven, who have been specially chosen as "firstfruits"....bought "from the earth".
Why has God chosen these ones? Revelation 20 verse 6 answers....
"Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years."

The priesthood in Israel was limited to one tribe and there were a specific number who served at any one time. Their duties were clearly outlined and they did as they were instructed by their High Priest. There is the pictorial representation of the heavenly kingdom....the shadow of the reality.

or whether one has a p.c. interpretation as to the issue of war, etc. The gospel's bottom line is belief in God and Jesus and living out the "law of love"-- the rest are just details. Anyone in any denomination can do that, so JW's have no logical advantage simply because they walk into a "kingdom hall" and agree with the doctrines thrown at them.

Beliefs determine actions and actions are what God judges us on.
Either God is a trinity....or he is not.
Either we have an immortal soul...or we do not.
Either there is a heavenly bliss or an eternal conscious suffering in a fiery hell...or there is not.

The Bible does not teach any of those "doctrines".

Ah, but determining "God's opinion on the issue of war" is actually quite conjectural.
Start a thread and let me know.

Will do that later as I have time.....

 

[Sapiens]

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane" Dawkins

Nothing is less scientific than this sort of name calling. It only betrays that your position is based on passion more than cool headed science, and that you can never change your mind, no matter the evidence, or you become all the things you called others.

That's why Hoyle was obliged to reject the Big Bang all his life, after mocking it as 'religious pseudoscience'

There are far more accomplished scientists than Dawkins, who are skeptical of Darwinism on a scientific basis, and have no need for name calling

Similarly, I don't think evolutionists are ignorant, stupid, or insane, I used to be an ardent believer, it's a very attractive theory- superficially. So was classical physics. But science has come a long way in 150 years. Darwinism does not fit with scientific observation today as it did then, but it is dearly loved and defended with great passion.

But it is quite true, I can not imagine a person who is well educated, bright and sane who would reject evolution in favor of YEC, or ID or any other form of Christian biblical fundamentalism.

Please list a few scientists who are far more accomplished scientists than Dawkins and who are skeptical of Darwinism on a scientific basis, for I can think of none.

Please support your claim that Darwinism does not fit with scientific observation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But it is quite true, I can not imagine a person who is well educated, bright and sane who would reject evolution in favor of YEC, or ID or any other form of Christian biblical
fundamentalism.

Please list a few scientists who are far more accomplished scientists than Dawkins and who are skeptical of Darwinism on a scientific basis, for I can think of none.

Please support your claim that Darwinism does not fit with scientific observation.

I honestly used to feel exactly the same way, anyone who didn't share my passionate belief in evolution, Darwinism was somehow intellectually inferior- didn't understand it, and/or was blinded by religion, I told them so in a similarly patronizing manner.

And that's part of the problem. Much of evolution is disseminated explicitly as a rejection of alternatives, rather than on it's own merits. Once we label other beliefs as inherently inferior, to be mocked and ridiculed, we are no longer following evidence impartially.

I will say this for Darwinism, it DID fit with scientific observation and understanding perfectly well when it was formulated 150 odd years ago. It was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics, a similarly simple handful of immutable laws and algorithms, which given enough time and space to randomly bump about in, would create all the wonders we see around us. And it was an extremely attractive proposition. Long before we know about the information systems of DNA, the staggered, explosive stages of development they determined, the realm of Quantum Mechanics.

And so the long running battle between the progression of science into ever deeper realms, and the restraining arm of atheism, which always looks to 'close the case' prematurely on the most simple, superficial, God refuting explanation at hand.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you think so.....?

The thing is...I believe someone designed and built the bus (not the psychic whale that is eating little bits of our souls).....but you think the bus 'poofed' itself into existence as an drop of oil and then gradually evolved into a bus over millions of years, (as a product of natural selection) producing wheels, tires and an engine, with no designer, builder or mechanic in sight. You are free to believe that if you wish.

I think that the evidence suggests where the bus came from. We follow the evidence and we will come up with the correct answer. Now seeing as people are different than buses we will have to follow a different trail of evidence.
But the point made was that beliefs based on evidence are not equal with beliefs based on faith.

Which is what I have said all along....except I can process what science is suggesting.....I just think that its so far fetched that it leaves my designer God in the shade!
You think that the existence of an all powerful entity is not the first best explanation of how life began, let alone responsible for the magnificent way it presents itself in a staggering array of lifeforms on this planet......all self-replicating and in an environment that is self sustaining for every creature. All "just accidental" from your perspective. How many "accidents" do you know of that are beneficial?

God is left in the shade because no evidence has pulled him into the light. Science only follows the evidence. Because it took a different direction than what primitive desert dwellers from two thousand years ago would have guessed then it isn't an issue.

A good example of accidental mutation? My uncle was born with vision slightly better than 20/20. No one else in my family has this trait. He can read and see the tiniest letters/symbols on the eye scale and could go even better. That is an exaple of a positive accident.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But it has everything to do with this discussion. Since these 'programs' for self preservation are inbuilt in most creatures, you say they require no programmer. How many programs do you run on your computer or tablet that have no programmer?

I was trying to pick stink bugs off my citrus trees the other day.....their ability to avoid my capture was amazing!

Are their tiny brains capable of anything but instinctive behavior? Instinct is programming....programming requires a programmer.

Animals are not programed in the same way computers are. You keep attempting to force the two together.
"I carved this stick. How can something have such complex shape if no one carved it? How can you not believe in an all mighty carver?"

No I don't. But animals do not treat death like humans do. Wild animals have no burial rituals or funerals, nor does the death of a member of the herd or flock cause them to even acknowledge the loss in most cases.....for those creatures who live in family groups, it causes little more than a need to adjust their programming.

Some creatures are programmed to mate with the best available suitor, whereas others are designed to mate for life, even within the same genus. The loss of that mate can be a challenge for them, but they will seek another mate eventually. Humans are not only programmed to mate for life, but are physically geared to malfunction if multiple partners are sought. STI's are the result.
When God instituted marriage, he programmed humans to seek one mate and that the two would become "one flesh".
We humans have a sense of absolute betrayal when our mate is unfaithful. That is like having your other half ripped away, causing extreme emotional pain. That is not a social adaptation....that is a deliberate design, meant to keep families together, so that children are raised by the people who brought them into existence. Family members are designed to bond in these familial ties. Stepping outside of this arrangement creates all manner of problems....the most destructive is of course is domestic violence....way too prevalent these days.

Many animals mourn. Dogs, cats, elephants, chimpanzees, crows and I could keep going and going. Empathy isn't a human construct. Any creatures with advanced social patterns have it.

And actually wanting to have a single mate is an adaptation. Its a very good adaptation.

Currently domestic violence is at an all time low. I mean the bible goes into specifics of how and when to beat your wife. Our modern law just says to not do it. I like our laws better than gods in this case.

So its just an accident that humans have a collective desire to be happy? Even the animals that are domesticated like our pets, have a desire to be happy as a result of our role as caretakers of the animals kingdom.....is that just an accident too?

Even wild animals have been shown to want something akin to happiness. Dolphis have extremely similar social structures. They seek social acceptance and "happiness". Crows like to play even as adults. The dog and cat did not obtain their "happiness seeking" from humans. It existed prior and we simply see it better.

How convenient to throw everything under the same bus? God is not a mathematical equation any more than science's theories. But the logic science uses can be equally applied to the Creator. There is as much logic attached to life being the result of deliberate design than a haphazard, accidental series of beneficial mutations over millions of years. I ask again...how many accidents or mutations are beneficial?

No one can categorically prove either one. Science can make all the suggestions it likes, and it can interpret its evidence in a way that seems to back it up....but we all know that it is a theory, not a fact....no matter how much you protest.

You keep saying it is improbable. You keep saying that the chances are so low. You need to prove that with math otherwise you need to stop saying it. You don't know the chances. You don't know even how to calculate the chances. You just say things that resonate with your beliefs. The universe is extremely vast. The chances of earth and life developing is good. So good that it is assumed that there is pobably tons of life in the Universe. Earth isn't that unique. Its unique from a general standpoint. Probably one in trillions. However we have more galaxies in the observable universe than we have stars in the milkey way. The visible universe is so much smaller than the unobservable universe that we may have more clusters than planets in our galaxy.

So when you tell me that chances are too low you gotta show me the math where you figured that out.

Science does brainwash. Otherwise it would not be taught in schools as an established fact, when all it has to "prove" itself is educated guessing. It would not scorn and penalize children for having a different view. We have no choice but to educate our children...its the law of the land and I have no objection to that. But the only way to counteract the teaching of evolution is to educate our children to see the flaws. Home schooling is an option, but it is no open to all.

And this is why America is considered stupid by the rest of the developed world. We are not inately dumb. But we have some very powerful people actively trying to make us dumb.

You don't get to choose your facts. Facts are true reguardless of belief. Evolution is solid. There is no scientific debate and there are no flaws. They have been refuted. I don't think you will ever agree to that and I find it sad. There isn't even a point to debate here. You tell me the moon landing is fake or that vaccines cause autism or that evolution is a lie by that secret atheist majority that rules the world and oppresses good christians I just have to laugh it off.

I never said it had done no good....I said that for every good thing it has accomplished, there are many more evil things it has produced....not the least of which would be atomic weapons.

Science is quick to make available for profit, many of its 'inventions' but long term detrimental effects have not been thoroughly investigated. The invention of plastics for example, began as a boon for every household, but now the planet is drowning in plastic waste where people are either too lazy to recycle, or have no means to do so.
Check it out and tell me how wonderful plastic is.....?

plastic waste islands - Google Search

Chemical products too have been used as pesticides and artificial fertilizers and the like......what has been the result? More production but less nutrition. Poor quality, mineral deficient soil produces low quality mineral deficient food. Mineral deficiency results in poor health and a breeding ground for disease......I could go on for pages about the inhumane farming practices in livestock production, but what would be the point?[/quote]
It allows us only to do more effectively what we did before. Science is the only hope we have of fixing our problems. When human greed takes the wheel it sucks. May I offer you a pamphlet to the American socialist party or the American Green party?

But also interesting note that the most religious party, the Republican party, is the most vehement about using technologies of war, oil production, pollution? Isn't it strante that the most religious groups are the ones that deny climate change and want to deregulate things put in place to protect the enviroment? Isn't it strange that those that side with science over religion are the vast majority of people in opposition to harming the enviroment or using war tools? Just food for thought.

This is an assumption, since no one knows why savants are imbued with pockets of genius in certain areas whilst being deficient in others.

Savants, I believe are a throwback to the genius capabilities that all humans could have had as a general rule if Adam had not lost his physical and mental perfection. "Sin" is an often misunderstood term, conjuring up some cruel dictator who punishes people for being 'sinful' when they see the whole scenario as his fault. That could not be further from the truth. Understanding what happened in Eden, explains everything that has transpired ever since. But don't look to Christendom for answers, because they lost the plot so long ago that they don't have any logical answers either, which then sends people looking for answers in other areas. Evolution seems to be an alternative, but it is devoid of any satisfying answers to those BIG questions.

I'll be the first to admit that science doesn't know everything. IT knows the most by far but it doesn't know everything. We have some understanding of savants but not a full understanding. We know for a fact that it isn't a throwback to the days where we were all superhumans. We also know that there is no link between faith and health. Sin does not cause disease. Germs cause disease.

Science cannot answer those questions that most ordinary people have.....'Why are we here?' 'What is the purpose of life?' 'Where are we going?' 'Does death end it all?' 'Will I ever see my lost loved ones again?'
Why do you think people want the answers to those questions?

There is a part of the human psyche that needs to know.

It can answer some of these questions.
There is no reason or design for us being here. We are here because of certain properties and function sof the universe.
There is no purpose of life beyond replication. But that doesn't mean we can't make a meaningful purpose out of our own lives for self fulfilment.
Eventually heat death of the universe.
Yes and no. You don't exist anymroe but your energy and matter never dies. It only changes.
Not if they are dead.

And the human psyche does not need to know them. But they are neat and thought provoking questions.

 

[metis]

I do not take very much notice of anything that came from "the church" from the second century onward.

And that's a problem because if there's a doubt about a more likely interpretation, how people reacted to the supposed teachings can be quite telling. The Book of Acts explains how the church spread into the diasporah, which included some of the apostles, and that they and their appointees taught what they had witnessed, and yet you are so willing to ignore what they actually did teach just because you draw an arbitrary line prior to the beginning of the 2nd century. This also relates to something you'll read from me at the end of this post.

We stuck strictly to what Christ and his apostles taught as Christian truth.

See above.

Having been raised Anglican, I am always suspicious of any church-educated man and his personal take on scripture.

I explained to you that what the author did do was to heavily quote and document the early writings from people who were taught by the apostles or their appointees. Your bias is so extensive that you demean the book and the author without even reading the book or knowing anything about the author. By doing as such, you undercut any credibility you think you might have on the subject.

I have read a great many books on the early church, but Dr. Hanson's book stands out, imo, because he goes back to the original sources and quotes and documents what they believed-- not the author.

What has political correctness got to do with Christ's teachings? Either a doctrine is from Jesus' teachings or it isn't.

What you fail to recognize is that what we read are different peoples' takes on what Jesus taught, and they did so decades after Jesus was crucified on a cross. They didn't have tape recorders back then, and even when the apostles were alive there were disagreements and failings amongst them. An example is that Paul and James appear not to see eye-to-eye, and also James seems to be upset when Peter is caught eating cheeseburgers with some gentiles.

BTW, which religious group by name actually selected the Bible that was passed down to what we can read now? Do you have any clue as to how long that process took and how many disagreements there were, the actual number of which we'll never know?

On top of that, your claim that there are no "contradictions" within the scriptures is quite illogical since it is virtually impossible to know that for certain. Theologians find many "variations", the word they prefer to use, and it is not at all difficult to come up with a batch of them, such as who was at Jesus' tomb, how many angels were there, where was/were he/they located, what did he/they say, and what did the women immediately do afterword. If you read the four gospels side-by-side, you'll see that no two agree.

 

[Sapiens]

I honestly used to feel exactly the same way, anyone who didn't share my passionate belief in evolution, Darwinism was somehow intellectually inferior- didn't understand it, and/or was blinded by religion, I told them so in a similarly patronizing manner.

Now you quote mine, a form of lying, in support of creationism, not exactly an improvement.

And that's part of the problem. Much of evolution is disseminated explicitly as a rejection of alternatives, rather than on it's own merits.

That's clearly made up out of the whole cloth.

Once we label other beliefs as inherently inferior, to be mocked and ridiculed, we are no longer following evidence impartially.

Perhaps that's your approach, I follow the evidence impartially and expect other to do the same. When they do not, especially when they introduce quote mines and other lies into the debate, are corrected and yet, like you, continue in their same ways, I a comfortable to so label them and throw in other appropriate epithets .

I will say this for Darwinism, it DID fit with scientific observation and understanding perfectly well when it was formulated 150 odd years ago. It was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics, a similarly simple handful of immutable laws and algorithms, which given enough time and space to randomly bump about in, would create all the wonders we see around us. And it was an extremely attractive proposition. Long before we know about the information systems of DNA, the staggered, explosive stages of development they determined, the realm of Quantum Mechanics.

You have made no case for QM mysteriously refuting evolution.

And so the long running battle between the progression of science into ever deeper realms, and the restraining arm of atheism, which always looks to 'close the case' prematurely on the most simple, superficial, God refuting explanation at hand.

What battle? That's solely in your mind, that's the sort of unsupported claim that gets you "labeled."

 

[gnostic]

And this is why America is considered stupid by the rest of the developed world. We are not inately dumb. But we have some very powerful people actively trying to make us dumb.

Most of these people are not using science to me

It would seem that these people tried to use politics, laws, and media (propaganda and PR) trying to convince certain scientific fields are wrong, not scientific and verifiable evidences.

For example, look at the qualifications and experiences of the founders and senior members of the Discovery Institute. Most of them have no educational or job backgrounds in science.

Bruce Chapman (founder of Discovery Institute) was a journalist, politician. He is a Catholic. Nothing in his records showed that he had background in science, like in biology, so what give him the authority to tell us that that evolution isn't science.

His long-time friend, George Gilder (also founder) is economist and journalist. He has no degree or diploma in biology, so his words really mean nothing when he has no expertise or experiences to dictate what is or isn't science.

Phillip Johnson was a law professor as well as a degree in arts, majoring in English literature, which has absolutely nothing to do with biology. Johnson is Protestant creationist. He was responsible for writing up the Wedge Document for the Institute, and is known for reviving the faulty 19th century Watchmaker analogy, using it for Intelligent Designer.

Michael Behe does have a background in biochemistry, and the one who proposed the debunked proposition Irreducible Complexity (IC). Even the biology department that he worked for at the university, other professors and teachers informed students and the public, that they don't support or endorsed Behe's IC and ID.

The Discovery Institute is not science organisation, but they are the only organisation that support Behe's refuted IC, and Behe loyally support the Institute, since they (Institute) are the ones bankrolling Behe.