New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[sayak83]

Biblical science refers to the descriptions of the way nature formed and how it works found in the Bible.



The Bible's track record for scientific accuracy is very poor.

Furthermore, none of it is useful.



I don't see it. The Bible seems just like what you would expect of Bronze age men. What should a book written by a super-human intelligence look like?

Here's one take on that:

"Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon

Here's another (from RG Ingersoll):

• It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.

• It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

• It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

• There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

• Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

• Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired

• It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

• It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

• It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.

• It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

• It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.

It also should be completely unambiguous in its meaning, like 2+3=5.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Far from being convincing, this extrapolation ["many little changes can result in larger aggregate changes"], which worked fine within a Victorian age understanding, has been soundly debunked scientifically if not academically.

Except that science still accepts that small changes occurring over shorter durations accumulate into larger changes over longer periods of time indefinitely. Only creationists dispute this.

Can you suggest a mechanism that would prevent this?

For example, consider an icicle forming on your eave. There is a limit to this process imposed by the fact that the icicle can only grow so large before it touches the ground below if it doesn't fall off from its own weight first. Smaller changes can only become larger changes over longer times to a point, and then the process limits itself.

What is the equivalent barrier to evolutionary changes?

If you can't name one, on what basis do you claim that one exists?

 

[Jose Fly]

Have you noticed that when the believer says, "See, we got something right," it's a tacit admission that science, not the Bible, is authoritative in these matters even in the minds of believers?

Someone who considered the Bible authoritative would say that science only got one thing right - that the universe had a beginning - but failed to identify the six days of creation or the manufacturing of mankind from dust and a rib.

But nobody says that. They struggle to make scripture conform to the science and ignore or rationalize the parts of the Bible that don't work.

Very much so. The entire debate is centered around one primary theme.....creationists attempting to gain scientific credibility for their religious beliefs. And behind that is a tacit admission by the creationists that science is the superior determinant of reality.

It used to be in our society that a religious authority or a religious text declaring something to be so was sufficiently persuasive. But now it's science that is the primary way in which we determine "truth". We see this in many aspects of our culture. In marketing we see phrases like "9 out of 10 scientists agree....", but we never see "Pastor Smith says....". In politics decisions are often put off "until the science is in", but rarely do we see decisions delayed "until Pastor Smith weighs in".

Creationists know this, and underlying all their arguments is their craving the "scientifically valid" label for their beliefs. The label "Biblically valid" just doesn't carry the weight it used to.

I've got a good illustration of your after-the-fact observation. One guy told me that the Bible foretold of modern telecommunications by citing a scripture from Job : "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" - Job 38:35

Of course, nobody had a clue that "lightnings" could be used to communicate until man discovered the science and technology of telecommunications. Nobody thought to study "lightnings" to see how to make them say "Here we are." Yet this is offered as evidence of divine knowledge.

And frankly, what are the odds that in a 750,000+ word book you couldn't find a handful of sentences that can be retrofitted after the fact to mildly suggest the scientific revelation like this "stretching the heavens like a tent" for expansion of the universe and "hanging the earth on nothing" for an earth not supported by pillars from below? Forget that this tent is still stretching, has no outside, and offers no shelter, and that the earth is not hanging.

Great example. If that verse were clearly about telecommunications, why weren't Christians running around telling everyone that we had to use "lightnings" to communicate? Why was it only after the technology was developed that they apparently realized what it really said?

 

[Jose Fly]

Except that science still accepts that small changes occurring over shorter durations accumulate into larger changes over longer periods of time indefinitely. Only creationists dispute this.

And they only dispute it with evolution, which just happens to contradict their religious beliefs. They don't do it with something like erosion, where small-scale erosion of a rock formation played out over long periods of time will result in very large-scale erosional changes.

Can you suggest a mechanism that would prevent this?

If you get an actual answer from Guy on this, I will be completely stunned.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that science still accepts that small changes occurring over shorter durations accumulate into larger changes over longer periods of time indefinitely. Only creationists dispute this.

Can you suggest a mechanism that would prevent this?

For example, consider an icicle forming on your eave. There is a limit to this process imposed by the fact that the icicle can only glow so large before it touches the ground below if it doesn't fall off from its own weight first. Smaller changes can only become larger changes over longer times to a point, and then the process limits itself.

What is the equivalent barrier to evolutionary changes?

If you can't name one, on what basis do you claim that one exists?

Science shows very limited adaptation through natural selection alone, Only certain evolutionists dispute this!

The icicle is still an icicle! it cannot entirely reprogram the information describing itself by a superficial change in size, neither can a dog or a fruit fly or bacteria.
The same applies to physics and computer programs, all contain variables which allow for an inherently limited degree of adaptation, you cannot re-write the code supporting specific adaptations- by the very adaptations that are supported!

Again those are not only logical barriers, they are observed empirically by direct experimentation, animals / genes can only be bred so far before hitting the ground, becoming sterile or other health problems.
This is reflected in the fossil record and in the structure of genetic code itself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑ Except that science still accepts that small changes occurring over shorter durations accumulate into larger changes over longer periods of time indefinitely. Only creationists dispute this. Can you suggest a mechanism that would prevent this?

Science shows very limited adaptation through natural selection alone, Only certain evolutionists dispute this!

The icicle is still an icicle! it cannot entirely reprogram the information describing itself by a superficial change in size, neither can a dog or a fruit fly or bacteria.
The same applies to physics and computer programs, all contain variables which allow for an inherently limited degree of adaptation, you cannot re-write the code supporting specific adaptations- by the very adaptations that are supported!

Again those are not only logical barriers, they are observed empirically by direct experimentation, animals / genes can only be bred so far before hitting the ground, becoming sterile or other health problems.
This is reflected in the fossil record and in the structure of genetic code itself.

That's a "No" then, right? You can't suggest a mechanism to prevent the evolution you agree occurs from becoming that which you say doesn't over more time?

Don't worry. Nobody else can, either.

 

[Shad]

How many of these are in the past tense, would you say?

Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

Enough are past tense context than dropping one that says stretches does nothing to change the mistake made. More so stretches does not mean it is a current process.

Did you look at your own link? Various translations can not even agree on the word to use.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's a "No" then, right? You can't suggest a mechanism to prevent the evolution you agree occurs from becoming that which you say doesn't over more time?

Don't worry. Nobody else can, either.

Told ya.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do YOU love your enemies? That would be evidence that this power to love is not solely Christian.

I have, on occasion, provided kind words to people with whom I was not friends.

Maybe you could answer my questions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm asking you--what is the kind of evidence you require? I've seen different pieces of evidence affect different people at different times and in different ways, leading to their conversion.

I don't know. I would have to see it to know if it were convincing or not. Empirical evidence would be great.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God created the mechanisms by which all snowflakes are different, and grains of sand, and we wonder about many of these things. God left signatures, if you will, of design everywhere.

What you saying regarding evolution is not new information to me. It is all assumptive, however. I understand "many little changes can result in larger aggregate changes" but remain unconvinced.

It is not all assumptive, not by a long shot. It's based on empirical, verifiable evidence, collected by many independent individuals across the world over more than a century.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you think such behaviours and kindnesses are strictly limited to Christians/Christianity? I don't see this dichotomy you're presenting here where the only explanation is that these people are either crazy or the Christian god must be real. Maybe they're just caring people, as many of us are. Maybe they respect the man for his ideas and oratory skills, and his championing of human rights enough to ignore his views on religion. Maybe they're following the dictates of their religious group. But, even if they are, that still doesn't point to the existence of any god(s). I don't see how you're drawing that connection.

Hitchens has also spoken and written about other people claiming to be Christians who have written him letters and emails wishing him ill will and suggesting that god is punishing him for speaking out about religion. What do we make of those?

I don't see how the ability to send love to someone you don't like when they are in need, is any kind of evidence for any god. It's evidence that humans have the ability to do so.

One behavior that seems (anecdotally) to be limited to Christians is love for enemies. I know people who forgive enemies, but love is more than forgiving or forgetting.

 

[metis]

One behavior that seems (anecdotally) to be limited to Christians is love for enemies. I know people who forgive enemies, but love is more than forgiving or forgetting.

Most of the Christians I know, including here at RF, seemingly would be willing to use bombs, maybe even nukes, to retaliate against enemies. I don't see how that would fit into "love". OTOH, Jains and many Buddhists would not be willing to retaliate using deadly force.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This talking point that's common across most religion makes no sense. It's essentially "Our holy book said X, centuries before science discovered X to be true."

If that were true, then why weren't adherents to that religion running around telling everyone that X was true, before science discovered it? Why is it only after science makes a discovery that the adherents turn up and declare "Oh....um.....our holy book says that too"?

Prophets are Bible writers who go around telling people to do what the Good Book says. The entire Bible says to follow its precepts and that its truth.

Specific prophecies tell the future. The realization that the Bible predicted the restoration of modern Israel millennia earlier is powerful!

 

[Jose Fly]

Specific prophecies tell the future.

Not in the example I was referring to. Remember, it's only after a scientific discovery is made that adherents to a text claim to realize that some passage was really referring to the discovery all along.

If no one understands it until after it already happened, it's not a prophecy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One behavior that seems (anecdotally) to be limited to Christians is love for enemies. I know people who forgive enemies, but love is more than forgiving or forgetting.

This has already been addressed (here), and you ignored that. Until you do, your claim is stalled and is dead in the water.

You have not addressed what you mean by love here, nor explained why loving enemies is a good idea.

Do you love Satan?

What do you think of this? :

"Love your enemies whilst I torture mine in the flames of hell for eternity" - Yahweh

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Specific prophecies tell the future. The realization that the Bible predicted the restoration of modern Israel millennia earlier is powerful!

Most of the world is unaffected by what you call a powerful prediction.

That's the best example of a self-fulfilling biblical prophecy that we have.

Let me show you what a compelling prophecy would look like. It's fiction of course - from the movie "Frequency."

Dennis Quaid's character's son, who is communicating to him by ham radio from his father future, wants to convince his father that it is really him and really coming from the future. From 1998, he tells his father who is living in 1969 at the time, the outcome of game five of the 1969 World Series by radio, which his father is watching live in a bar :

"Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuff mark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

The father sees it happening live on TV, and becomes convinced. That's high quality prophecy.

The specificity and unlikeliness tell you it's not a parlor trick as long as you can be sure that the game you are watching is live.

High quality prophecy is specific - that is, detailed and unambiguous. The highest quality prophecy specifies the time and place. It needs to prophecy something surprising, something unlikely or unique, something that could not have been contrived, and was not self-fulfilling.

And the prophecies need to be verified, fulfilled completely, predict something that definitely occurred subsequently, and be unaccompanied by failed prophecies.

Nothing in this world can actually do that except science.

How about a standing ovation for the scientists at CERN that found the Higgs particle? The scientific prophets told us EXACTLY where to look (at what energy and under what conditions) and EXACTLY what we would find there (the particle's mass, charge, spin, and parity).

The physicists said, "Examine matter at that very high energy, and if we're right about reality, you'll find Higgs."

The scientists already had an excellent record of prophecy:

[1] Einstein prophesied the bending of light grazing past the sun. Such was the confidence in the priests of science that a fleet of ships was sent to various locations around the world to confirm the prophecy in 1919. It made headlines. May 29, 1919: A Major Eclipse, Relatively Speaking

[2] Twenty-five years later, the scientists did it again. "Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the study of how electrons and photons interact ... The predictions of QED regarding the scattering of photons and electrons are accurate to eleven decimal places." How Quantum Physics Explains the Invisible Universe

[3] You can read about the prophecy of the cosmic microwave background and see the same thing. The priests of science predicted the existence of previously unsuspected radiation pervading the universe in an incredibly uniform way, and predicted it's precise temperature and wavelength, also later confirmed Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

So, based on that excellent reputation of prophecy, billions were allocated to look for the Higgs particle, with which the scientists built a fine machine - CERN's Large Hadron Collider - to look where man had never looked before except in his rich imagination.

[4] And lo and behold! A particle was born. Higgs! The scientific prophets were correct again. Biblical prophecy just can't compete with that.

Carl Sagan said it well:

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not in the example I was referring to. Remember, it's only after a scientific discovery is made that adherents to a text claim to realize that some passage was really referring to the discovery all along.

If no one understands it until after it already happened, it's not a prophecy.

Please allow me to clarify.

Solomon says pathways connect the oceans. This was verified in the 20th century.

Poetic language is used to describe the Earth hanging in the blackness of space. Again, 20th century near space travel for verification.

Over 200 of the 613 Mosaic laws have direct health benefit to us. Again, up to modern times to verify.

The Bible predicted Israel would become a nation again on May 15, 1948. Again, only verifiable in modern times.

Etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One behavior that seems (anecdotally) to be limited to Christians is love for enemies. I know people who forgive enemies, but love is more than forgiving or forgetting.

Well, all I can say is, maybe you need to get out more and meet a greater diversity of people.

I'm not sure why this particular "virtue" is being singled out as something special anyway. It's not always a smart idea to love one's enemies.

And I'm still not quite sure how this is supposed to be some kind of evidence for the existence of the Christian god.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Prophets are Bible writers who go around telling people to do what the Good Book says. The entire Bible says to follow its precepts and that its truth.

Specific prophecies tell the future. The realization that the Bible predicted the restoration of modern Israel millennia earlier is powerful!

Self-fulfilling prophecies aren't all that impressive to me.