The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

then it might be a good idea what parts of your Bible are mythological and which parts are not.

My Bible? Are you being snarky now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They can't pick and choose one single verse that plainly says Jesus is God. Find one if you can. But remember, you must understand what they thought the word "god" means. Suffice it to say, it's not what we think of when we hear the word today. To them it was simply anyone with power and authority. But there is only one God Almighty, called Yahweh in the scriptures and He is declared over and over to be the one true God. There is nothing about three in the word one.

On the other hand, I quoted two very simple, clear declarations that Jesus was a man. There are actually many more that are just as clear that say he was a man.

It is not difficult to ascertain where the idea of the trinity came from. It began when early converts brought that idea from their former religions, all of which had some idea of multiple gods. It became an official church doctrine at the behest of the emperor Constantine, who himself was considered a god by their culture and beliefs. There were and are many terms used to define the doctrine (trinity, one essence, true god and true man, blah, blah, etc.). I think it telling that not a single one is found in the scriptures themselves.

You can't clearly pick one where it says that he is not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My Bible? Are you being snarky now?

No. If I was being snarky I would have used the Pastafarian Bible to refute you.

 

[Valjean]

Physics experiments have been done in the lab.

NO experiment showing large changes in complex species have been done in the lab.

I'm not so sure.... How large a change are we talking about, and how complex the species?

But observation and interpretation of selection of behavior which result in large changes have been going on for more than 10,000 years. The problem is in interpretation even more than lack of experiment. The data might bite us in the nose but we can't see it. I've shown repeatedly in this very thread and you couldn't find it. I could put it in this post and explain it and you still can't see it.

Everybody sees only what they expect so this sentence won't even register.

Not following. What point are you trying to make?

 

[Valjean]

Last time!

There are countless examples of sudden change from death to birth or even marriage. There are countless examples. There are also countless examples of sudden changes in population and group behavior but I don't believe in "groups" and "species' or even "civilizations". One of the best examples of sudden change in species caused by behavior is a very modern one; 'tame minks'. Minks are hard to raise because they are mean. Someone selected sedate and friendly minks and got a new species in a single generation; SUDDEN! But their fur is no good so they won't go into production probably (at least not soon).

No matter how many times this is seen or recorded in history biologists can't see it because they already have the answers and can't imagine that nature would ever select for BEHAVIOR. But it does.

A new species of mink in one generation? I don't believe it. Link, please?

Are you, by chance, referring to Belyaev's foxes? Man's new best friend? A forgotten Russian experiment in fox domestication
If so you've got both the facts and conclusions wrong.

 

[rrobs]

No. If I was being snarky I would have used the Pastafarian Bible to refute you.

Sounds like a bunch of wet noodles to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like a bunch of wet noodles to me.

Pastafarianism is renowned for having the best heaven of all major religions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Try to imagine you lived 3,000 years ago in a very different culture.

That's irrelevant to the point I made.

Which was: if the story is to be understood literally, then the story is demonstrably false.

That may help you understand why they didn't speak of an expanding universe, DNA, etc. It's written according to their ancient worldview, not our's.

That doesn't matter to the point either.
Which, again, is: if these stories are meant literally, then they are demonstrably false.

As opposed to truth.

In science, a theory is as close to truth as it gets.

It's the highest level any idea in science can achieve.
It's basically a confirmed and well tested hypothesis that graduates into "theory".

In science, theory is the most important thing there is.
It means "explanation".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I thought that given all the rants on the scriptures, science ought to get equal time.

The difference is that science is based on solid verifiable evidence while scripture isn't.
You can argue the evidence of reality all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't make the evidence go away.

BTW, you seem to have a loose definition of "rant." I think we are just having a friendly discussion.

Sure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah. So?

So, that's a double standard.
Which is a dishonest way of arguing.

Gravity and evolution are two different animals.

Not really.
They are both scientific theories based on evidence, that make testable predictions.

Evolution as a theory, though, is a lot more solid and a lot more well-evidenced and a lot more detailed and accurate, then theory of gravity.

We know more about evolution and understand it better then we do gravity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No fault of the scriptures

But in contradiction of what you said.

As a matter of fact, Paul said everybody turned against the things he said in the NT before he even died. Christianity was infiltrated by the Roman, Greek, and Egyptian religions. Most of our present day doctrine is based on that and not the scriptures.

The thousands of christian denominations with some 2 billion followers are so lucky to have you, who knows and understands True Christianity (tm).

An example may help; most people have the idea that when someone dies, they don't really die, but that God called them to be with Him. If that were true, you might as well say God murdered the newborn baby. That's about what it amounts to anyway. However, even a casual reading of Genesis will show that the dead are not really dead is the exact lie the devil used to trick Adam and Eve (consider it a fairy tale if you will, but at least you should know the story). There are several verses that clearly say dead is dead, no thoughts, consciousness, feelings, etc. If you are interested, I'll show you the verses which require no more interpretation than the daily newspaper.

So how do you explain that billions of christians read the exact same text as you do, but somehow they walk away misunderstanding it, but not glorious you, who has the One True Interpretation?

What knowledge are you privy to that they aren't aware of?
How do you know that YOU are correct and that YOU aren't one of those that "misunderstood" it?
Because I assure you, those billions that don't agree with you - they are just as convinced of their beliefs being the One True Belief as you are about yours.

Another huge problem, probably worse than death, is the nature of Jesus. I'm pretty sure about 95% of Christians think he is God.

And again, you claim to be part of that tiny minority that managed to understand it correctly?

Why the vast majority of Christians miss that is frankly way beyond me. Do you think anything said in these two verses need "interpretation?" I don't think so.

I don't care one bit about any verse. People read into it whatever they want. Including you.

I think I read somewhere that the scriptures are written to a 5th to 8th grade grammar level.

It is not difficult to learn church history and see where, as Paul said, the vast majority left truth in favor of tradition. Hence 10,000 denominations. But most make Jesus God which is the most sure fired way of screwing up the entire narrative.

If only all those billions of people had your superior biblical understand ha?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ancient science had no experiment but relied on the logic of reality as expressed in a metaphysical language.

That doesn't lead to accurate answers about the world.
Such methodology would NEVER make you discover quantum physics or relativity or alike, as those defy logic / common sense.

This is why 7000 years of "ancient science" resulted in exorcism and bloodletting as a treatment of illness, while a few decades of scientific research resulted in anti-biotics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They do have messages that would serve our modern life in a very positive way

They also have verses that would propel us back into the dark ages and worse.
I'll also add that there is NO message in those scriptures that would be positive, which wouldn't be present in purely secular modern approaches either. And indeed they aren't.

I challenge you to give me a single such "message" with positive effects on modern life, which is actually dependend on the religious ideas. Such that nobody could think them up by secular means.

On the flip side, many of the negative things are exactly that: dependend on the religious doctrines. Such that nobody would think them up by secular approaches.

 

[Valjean]

They also have verses that would propel us back into the dark ages and worse.
I'll also add that there is NO message in those scriptures that would be positive, which wouldn't be present in purely secular modern approaches either. And indeed they aren't.

I challenge you to give me a single such "message" with positive effects on modern life, which is actually dependend on the religious ideas. Such that nobody could think them up by secular means.

On the flip side, many of the negative things are exactly that: dependend on the religious doctrines. Such that nobody would think them up by secular approaches.

Often it hardly seems to matter what the actual scriptures say. People twist and cherry-pick them so, they always seem to support the conservative values of the day, or the political schemes of the powerful.

 

[gnostic]

No. You need to study the history of the Bible. Most realize that Moses was a fictional character.

That's about how old the books are that Moses was inspired to write.

Of course. Most people don't believe in the Bible. Nothing new there.

There were no books (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus) written in the mid to late Bronze Age, by a man named Moses.

According to 1 Kings 6:1, it stated that Moses left Rameses, Egypt, with his people, 480 years before Solomon started building temple, on the 4th year of his reign.

6 In the four hundred eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord.

If my date of Solomon’s reign - c 970 - c 931 BCE - is correct, then when the start of temple construction would be 967 BCE.

This would mean Moses leaving Egypt would date to around 1447 BCE. This date would mean -

1. Moses was born about 1527 BCE
2. and Moses died about 1407 BCE.

Moses supposedly started his departure from Rameses:

37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children.

Rameses the city (along with another city Pithom) was supposedly being built around the time of Moses’ birth about 80 years earlier.

11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor. They built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh.

The problem is that the Exodus have left no names to any Egyptian kings in the time of his birth (c 1527 BCE) and in the time of departure from Egypt (c 1447 BCE), so there are no ways to determine and verify what Exodus is saying to be true.

Unlike the Exodus, Egyptian records about the dynasty in that period (New Kingdom period, c 1549 - c 1077 BCE) were more through, from the annals, the king lists and other inscriptions were more plentiful.

1527 BCE would put this date to Ahmose I (reign c 1549 - 1524 BCE), the 1st king of the 18th dynasty (c 1549 - 1292 BCE). Ahmose was responsible for driving the Hyksos out of Egypt.

1447 BCE would put this date to Thutmose III (reign 1479 - 1425 BCE), and 1407 BCE (Moses’ death) would put the date to in the reign of Thutmose’s son and successor - Amenhotep II (reign 1427 - 1401 BCE).

Now, here are some of the problems with Moses being attributed as author.

(A)

There are no written Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Genesis that be physically dated to this period.

First, there are no writings Hebrew alphabets dated in the 15th century BCE. There are no parchments, no scrolls made of papyri, no clay tablets, no stone tablets, no inscriptions on bronze, that exist with any book, chapter or verse from these 4 books date to the late Bronze Age.

So there are zero evidence that the books of Exodus or Genesis existing in the 15th century BCE. Not even fragments can be found and dated this time.

The oldest evidence of OT writing are tiny fragments of Numbers 6, contains passage of the Priestly Blessings, written on silver sheeting. Archaeologists named them the Silver Scrolls, and now kept in Israel Museum.

These objects were found in the cave at Ketef Hinnom, that served as burial chambers, and has been dated to between 540 and 590 BCE.

So the artefacts found at Ketef Hinnom cave could be as early as the reign of King Josiah of Judah or as late as near the time when Neo-Babylonian army razed Jerusalem as well as the temple.

To date, there are no earlier writing then these scrolls.

(B)

Ahmose I has never had Rameses built.

There was a city called Pi-Ramesses, which mean the “House Of Ramesses”, because it was named after the 3rd king of the 19th dynasty (1292 - 1187 BCE) - Ramesses II (reign 1279 - 1213 BCE).

Ramesses’ grandfather, Ramesses I, who had started the 19th dynasty, didn’t rule Egypt long, lasting only 2 to 3 years, certainly could not have built Pi-Ramesses.

As you can see, there are discrepancies in trying to match Exodus Rameses with historical Pi-Ramesses. Pi-Ramesses do exist, but not in the reign of Ahmose I.

(C)

There is another date, that doesn’t match up.

According to Joshua, after Moses’ death (supposedly after 1407 BCE), they crossed the Jordan (Joshua 3), attacked Jericho (Joshua 6), and left the city abandoned.

But according to archaeologists, like Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s, have dated the city has been abandoned as early as 1550 BCE, and even more recent dating, put this layer (Jericho IV) was dated to 1573 BCE.

This date 1573 means that the destruction of Jericho was actually dated before Moses’ birth, not after his death, as (Book of) Joshua say.

Just as Moses didn’t write Exodus, Joshua didn’t write the book that was named after him. And nothing in Genesis, Exodus and Joshua are considered “history”.

 

[cladking]

That doesn't lead to accurate answers about the world.

This is your opinion based on what you know and understand.

Theoretical physicists don't agree with you. They spend much of their time trying to probe the frontiers of knowledge with mathematics. Math is quantified logic and Ancient Language was logic expressed as language. It's all in the nature of words and their formatting.

Such methodology would NEVER make you discover quantum physics or relativity or alike, as those defy logic / common sense.

You are most probably right that quantum physics could never be discovered using only logic and observation. But you are almost certainly wrong that it defies logic. It defies "common sense" because common sense is based on beliefs rather than logic.

This is why 7000 years of "ancient science" resulted in exorcism and bloodletting as a treatment of illness, while a few decades of scientific research resulted in anti-biotics.

No...

I believe their was a mutation that created complex language and that this mutation was a closer connection between the speech center and higher brain functions. The ability of the "mutant" to cooperate and better communicate with others caused it to spread through the species of "proto-humans" and Homo Sapiens came into existence in a very few generations. SUDDENLY. This was only 40,000 years ago and then the specific complex language that arose failed 4000 years ago. At this time (in the dust of the "tower of babel") modern man, Homo Omnisciencis arose.

There was no 7000 years of "ancient science" that lasted 7000 years. Agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago and it sustained modern man who was far too superstitious to live in a world that hadn't already been tamed. Without agriculture humans would have died out shortly after the destruction of Ancient Language and science.

Everything is about life and life is change. Nothing at all is static and life must adapt to change. But life doesn't adapt as a species because there is no such thing as "species". This is just a word we use symbolically as a symbol for different types of animals. It is a reductionistic word just as "types" is. There is no such thing as a "type" in reality and we imagine there is and then put ideas and objects to the word. Life doesn't adapt and species don't adapt; only individuals can adapt. It was individuals left after the collapse of the tower and they struggled to survive to create God's "Crown of Creation"; modern man. Everyone knows everything and everyone sees all of reality in terms of this omniscience. You know "evolution" is caused by survival of the fittest and I only know that you make perfect sense and that I believe you are completely wrong.

Your problem with your belief in evolution is that facts and experiment don't fit it. Observation disagrees with you.

 

[cladking]

A new species of mink in one generation? I don't believe it. Link, please?

Are you, by chance, referring to Belyaev's foxes? Man's new best friend? A forgotten Russian experiment in fox domestication
If so you've got both the facts and conclusions wrong.

Thank you. Yes, you are probably right that I was confused.

It matters little that the real story isn't as solid of support for my theory. They are using selective breeding for behavior but we have no way of knowing if foxes are more or less adaptable in this way than other species or in what of a virtually infinite number of parameters along which they can be bred that they are adaptable. Far worse each individual fox and potential fox-like animal also has a "evolutionary quotient" and an "adaptability quotient". No experiment will ever be able to predict in what ways a fox can evolve or know the causes of past evolution.

I believe that it is not rare in geologic time for a species to be virtually wiped out. When this occurs and very few individuals survive there is a very strong tendency for these specific individuals to share a behavior which is unusual for the species. THEY breed a new species because everything is genetic in nature INCLUDING behavior. "Nature Vs Nurture" is oxymoron because nature is life and nurture (behavior) is change. Life is consciousness and consciousness drives "all" behavior. Life is genetic and behavior is as well. There is no such thing as "survival of the fittest" and this belief is principally a product of our expectations, desires, and language.

 

[cladking]

I should point out as well that I believe life didn't evolve on earth. It probably would have but it was like a giant petri dish and it was "contaminated" by living organisms ("germs" of various types) that are among the "cosmic dust". This is why humans share so many traits (genes) with oak trees; we both evolved for billions of years from the same sources. We both had highly complex genes before we ever got to earth.

 

[cladking]

But you are almost certainly wrong that it defies logic. It defies "common sense" because common sense is based on beliefs rather than logic.

This is why Peers are wrong and Look and See Science can never really be right. Somehow everyone got the idea in their heads that an expert can figure out reality with nothing but his expertise and observation using "common sense". Science doesn't work this way. Anything outside of metaphysics is false or speculation. This is by definition. An Egyptologist can't glance at the pyramid and state "they mustta used ramps". It is nonsense. Now days we have this everywhere and at least to a small extent I think we can blame it on Einstein and his "thought experiments".

There is necessarily too much "common sense" in a thought experiment.

 

[rrobs]

Pastafarianism is renowned for having the best heaven of all major religions.

Did you mean heaven or carbs? All hale to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.