Making waves (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, June 04, 2013, 15:58 (4191 days ago)
I occasionally comment at the website Uncommon Descent but never expected this reply:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinists-our-interpretation-of-the-data-is-the-data/
Making waves
DAVID: I occasionally comment at the website Uncommon Descent but never expected this reply:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinists-our-interpretation-of-the-...-As always, your comments are measured and informative, in contrast to those of Joealtle, and you did well to keep your cool. I do wish, though, that ID-ers (and you yourself) would keep Darwinism in perspective. From what I've read about Darwin, he was the most courteous of men, and was aware of many of the gaps in his theory. He did not draw the conclusions that others have drawn from his ideas (he was an agnostic, as you know), and what's more the name of this particular website begs certain fundamental questions. You yourself have never to my knowledge rejected the theory of common descent, and the wholesale theistic dismissal of "Darwinism" ... as opposed to focused rejection of gradualism and of random mutations as the driving force behind innovation ... is as blinkered as the wholesale atheistic dismissal of ID. There are enormous areas of both theories which need to be taken with the utmost seriousness and which are actually compatible with each other.-Having said that, I should add that reading the exchanges makes me all the more grateful for the fact that over the years the discussions on this forum have embraced a very wide variety of views while only rarely descending to Joealtle's level of personal abuse!
Making waves
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 05, 2013, 18:47 (4190 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Having said that, I should add that reading the exchanges makes me all the more grateful for the fact that over the years the discussions on this forum have embraced a very wide variety of views while only rarely descending to Joealtle's level of personal abuse!-The nice aspect of the exchange was it allowed me politely to introduce myself and my background more than they knew. From the way they are tied to Christian fundamentalism, they would have trouble with my theistic version of evolution. They don't like the theistic evolution Christians who write
Making waves
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, June 09, 2013, 01:44 (4186 days ago) @ David Turell
David: The nice aspect of the exchange was it allowed me politely to introduce myself and my background more than they knew. From the way they are tied to Christian fundamentalism, they would have trouble with my theistic version of evolution. They don't like the theistic evolution Christians who write-Any Christian that is not open to scientific possibilities is, IMHO, being willfully ignorant. The bible rarely talks about science. When it does, I do not doubt it's accuracy, though I do doubt the translators ability to convey the original thought processes behind the original words in a way that would make sense to the western mind. Moreover, the bible is not 'anti-evolution', it is 'anti-abiogenesis' and 'anti-speciation'. Not precisely the same things. :)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Making waves
by David Turell , Sunday, June 09, 2013, 02:29 (4186 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: Any Christian that is not open to scientific possibilities is, IMHO, being willfully ignorant. -The website represents intelligent design. It was started by William Dembski, but he rarely contributes now. They are very anti-Darwin, but the points they bring up about the weaknesses of Darwin are generally right on point. Darwin honestly tried. His science knowledge level was a tiny slice of what we know now, as research has trudged onward. He watched breeders alter their stock and saw how tiny step led to differing forms. He made the jump to speciation, although he never saw any evidence of the true method of speciation. His was a good speculation, but a weak theory, based mainly on supposition. The ID group is mixed. some accept evolution, some do not.
Making waves
TONY: Any Christian that is not open to scientific possibilities is, IMHO, being willfully ignorant. The bible rarely talks about science. When it does, I do not doubt it's accuracy, though I do doubt the translators ability to convey the original thought processes behind the original words in a way that would make sense to the western mind. -Having spent my entire working life writing, analysing and translating texts, I have to say that one rarely finds an author who can always say precisely what he means, every interpreter and translator can ONLY make or translate his own subjective interpretation of the original words, and if the author is dead, NO-ONE can EVER say for sure that the interpretation or translation corresponds to his original intention anyway. Your doubts concerning the versions of the bible that you read would have to apply no matter who wrote, interpreted or translated the original text, and even if you were a native speaker of the language, you would still have the same problem. However, it makes for a marvellous get-out when there are passages in the bible that people dislike! ("I don't think God/Moses could have meant it quite that way.") TONY: Moreover, the bible is not 'anti-evolution', it is 'anti-abiogenesis' and 'anti-speciation'. Not precisely the same things. :)-By speciation I understand the evolution of each species from already existing species, the core concept being the theory of common descent. This is crucial to Darwin's theory, as opposed to the belief that "each species has been independently created" i.e. by God (Recapitulation and Conclusion). I know we have had long discussions on this, concerning the meaning of "after its/his/their kind", but unless you really believe the bible teaches that all species evolved from earlier species right back to LUCA, I still think you need to do an awful lot of wriggling to claim that it is not "anti-evolution".
Making waves
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, June 11, 2013, 02:44 (4184 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Moreover, the bible is not 'anti-evolution', it is 'anti-abiogenesis' and 'anti-speciation'. Not precisely the same things. :) > > DHW: By speciation I understand the evolution of each species from already existing species, the core concept being the theory of common descent. This is crucial to Darwin's theory, as opposed to the belief that "each species has been independently created" i.e. by God (Recapitulation and Conclusion). I know we have had long discussions on this, concerning the meaning of "after its/his/their kind", but unless you really believe the bible teaches that all species evolved from earlier species right back to LUCA, I still think you need to do an awful lot of wriggling to claim that it is not "anti-evolution".-Not much wriggling at all. To say that all bovines came from other bovines, diverged into new and different types of bovines is not anti-evolution. It merely puts constraints on the theory which brings it into line with what we have observed.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Making waves
TONY: Moreover, the bible is not 'anti-evolution', it is 'anti-abiogenesis' and 'anti-speciation'. Not precisely the same things. :)-DHW: By speciation I understand the evolution of each species from already existing species, the core concept being the theory of common descent. This is crucial to Darwin's theory, as opposed to the belief that "each species has been independently created" i.e. by God (Recapitulation and Conclusion). I know we have had long discussions on this, concerning the meaning of "after its/his/their kind", but unless you really believe the bible teaches that all species evolved from earlier species right back to LUCA, I still think you need to do an awful lot of wriggling to claim that it is not "anti-evolution".-TONY: Not much wriggling at all. To say that all bovines came from other bovines, diverged into new and different types of bovines is not anti-evolution. It merely puts constraints on the theory which brings it into line with what we have observed.-Different types of bovines are variations, but evolution says that bovines, fish, birds, primates ALL go back to a common ancestor. You may disagree, of course, and you may say this has not been "observed", but the theory explicitly rejects separate creation of these different "kinds" as proposed by the bible. That is why the bible is "anti-evolution".
Making waves
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 11, 2013, 17:06 (4184 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Not much wriggling at all. To say that all bovines came from other bovines, diverged into new and different types of bovines is not anti-evolution. It merely puts constraints on the theory which brings it into line with what we have observed. > > dhw: Different types of bovines are variations, but evolution says that bovines, fish, birds, primates ALL go back to a common ancestor. You may disagree, of course, and you may say this has not been "observed", but the theory explicitly rejects separate creation of these different "kinds" as proposed by the bible. That is why the bible is "anti-evolution".-The bible is not anti-evolution. It again depends on the interpretation. If God guided evolution then the bible is correct. Just stay away from the 6-day creation of the KJV. Yom always means an instant in time to an eon. Take your pick.
Making waves
DAVID: The bible is not anti-evolution. It again depends on the interpretation. If God guided evolution then the bible is correct. Just stay away from the 6-day creation of the KJV. Yom always means an instant in time to an eon. Take your pick.-Please tell me the biblical text that can be interpreted as meaning that "bovines, fish, birds and primates" all go back to a common ancestor. You keep telling us that God's purpose for evolution was humans, and of all the bible-versus-evolution controversies, this is surely the most far-reaching: Ge, 2, 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Ge. 2, 21-22: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman..." Please explain to me how to interpret that as meaning that humans and chimps split off from a common ancestor.
Making waves
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 12, 2013, 15:05 (4183 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The bible is not anti-evolution. It again depends on the interpretation. If God guided evolution then the bible is correct. Just stay away from the 6-day creation of the KJV. Yom always means an instant in time to an eon. Take your pick. > > dhw: Please tell me the biblical text that can be interpreted as meaning that "bovines, fish, birds and primates" all go back to a common ancestor. You keep telling us that God's purpose for evolution was humans, and of all the bible-versus-evolution controversies, this is surely the most far-reaching: Ge, 2, 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Ge. 2, 21-22: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman..." Please explain to me how to interpret that as meaning that humans and chimps split off from a common ancestor.-Cherry-picker! In Genesis 1:20 "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures". If Yom is an 'eon', the swarm developed over time. The bible is written to be interpreted, not taken verbatim.
Making waves
DAVID: The bible is not anti-evolution. It again depends on the interpretation. If God guided evolution then the bible is correct. Just stay away from the 6-day creation of the KJV. Yom always means an instant in time to an eon. Take your pick.-dhw: Please tell me the biblical text that can be interpreted as meaning that "bovines, fish, birds and primates" all go back to a common ancestor. You keep telling us that God's purpose for evolution was humans, and of all the bible-versus-evolution controversies, this is surely the most far-reaching: Ge, 2, 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Ge. 2, 21-22: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman..." Please explain to me how to interpret that as meaning that humans and chimps split off from a common ancestor.-DAVID: Cherry-picker! In Genesis 1:20 "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures". If Yom is an 'eon', the swarm developed over time. The bible is written to be interpreted, not taken verbatim.-This is not cherry-picking; it's a fundamental part of the biblical anti-evolutionist creationist argument! It is you who claim that the bible is not anti-evolution, so let me once more ask you to explain how the above account can be interpreted to mean that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor and were not specially created. If you can't do so, but can only plead that the bible is not to be taken verbatim, you may as well argue that the bible is not anti-evolution because we needn't take any notice of what it says.
Making waves
by David Turell , Friday, June 14, 2013, 15:58 (4181 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: It is you who claim that the bible is not anti-evolution, so let me once more ask you to explain how the above account can be interpreted to mean that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor and were not specially created. If you can't do so, but can only plead that the bible is not to be taken verbatim, you may as well argue that the bible is not anti-evolution because we needn't take any notice of what it says.-On page 67 of my book, science vs. religion, I quote a Nahmanides amazing description of our Big Bang theory taken from the first verses of Genesis. Minds greater than ours read the allegory of the bible and see far more than the mere words of weak translations.-Once again, yom is a ancient Hebrew word. When Genesis says God created the beasts of the field at yom three, it doesn't tell us how long it took if yom is considered to mean an eon. That allows for an evolutionary process, which you and I agree, for which there is copious evidence.-One must combine bible with science, and then there is a congruence, allowing for the artistic ways the religions put things.
Making waves
dhw: It is you who claim that the bible is not anti-evolution, so let me once more ask you to explain how the above account can be interpreted to mean that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor and were not specially created. If you can't do so, but can only plead that the bible is not to be taken verbatim, you may as well argue that the bible is not anti-evolution because we needn't take any notice of what it says.-DAVID: On page 67 of my book, science vs. religion, I quote a Nahmanides amazing description of our Big Bang theory taken from the first verses of Genesis. Minds greater than ours read the allegory of the bible and see far more than the mere words of weak translations.-The Big Bang has nothing to do with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.-DAVID: Once again, yom is a ancient Hebrew word. When Genesis says God created the beasts of the field at yom three, it doesn't tell us how long it took if yom is considered to mean an eon. That allows for an evolutionary process, which you and I agree, for which there is copious evidence. One must combine bible with science, and then there is a congruence, allowing for the artistic ways the religions put things.-You are determined to "cherry-pick" the reference to time, which I'm happy to accept as being made to fit in with the time scale of evolution. But you continue to dodge what you yourself consider to be the goal of evolution, which is the emergence of humans. This has always been the greatest source of controversy between creationists and evolutionists: the bible gives an account of how God created man (and woman) separately; evolution claims that man and chimps descended from a common ancestor. If you really and truly think this is merely the result of a "weak translation", or an "artistic way", I'm sorry, but until God gives us the "correct" translation or personally edits the text to fit in with your beliefs, I still see no choice but to say that the bible is anti-evolution. If we can't judge by the text we have, what else are we supposed to judge by?
Making waves
by David Turell , Saturday, June 15, 2013, 15:29 (4180 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You are determined to "cherry-pick" the reference to time, which I'm happy to accept as being made to fit in with the time scale of evolution. But you continue to dodge what you yourself consider to be the goal of evolution, which is the emergence of humans. This has always been the greatest source of controversy between creationists and evolutionists: the bible gives an account of how God created man (and woman) separately; evolution claims that man and chimps descended from a common ancestor. -The bible does tell us God intended to produce humans. The bible does not describe evolution, only that God created species and humans. The bible does not give a method, which now many of us accept as some type of a controlled evolutionary process. I am a theistic evolutionist which drives bible thumpers nuts. The bible is to be interpreted, not rigidly translated from the ancient words.
Making waves
by BBella , Saturday, June 15, 2013, 20:09 (4179 days ago) @ David Turell
The bible does tell us God intended to produce humans. The bible does not describe evolution, only that God created species and humans. The bible does not give a method, which now many of us accept as some type of a controlled evolutionary process. I am a theistic evolutionist which drives bible thumpers nuts. The bible is to be interpreted, not rigidly translated from the ancient words.-In other words, dhw, the Bible is a perfect example for Quantum Reality. What is an Agnostic to do with that? lol
Making waves
by David Turell , Saturday, June 15, 2013, 21:16 (4179 days ago) @ BBella
bbella: The bible does tell us God intended to produce humans. The bible does not describe evolution, only that God created species and humans. The bible does not give a method, which now many of us accept as some type of a controlled evolutionary process. I am a theistic evolutionist which drives bible thumpers nuts. The bible is to be interpreted, not rigidly translated from the ancient words. > > In other words, dhw, the Bible is a perfect example for Quantum Reality. What is an Agnostic to do with that? lol-bbela, thanks for you support.
Making waves
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, June 16, 2013, 06:43 (4179 days ago) @ dhw
> > DHW: You are determined to "cherry-pick" the reference to time, which I'm happy to accept as being made to fit in with the time scale of evolution. But you continue to dodge what you yourself consider to be the goal of evolution, which is the emergence of humans. This has always been the greatest source of controversy between creationists and evolutionists: the bible gives an account of how God created man (and woman) separately; evolution claims that man and chimps descended from a common ancestor. If you really and truly think this is merely the result of a "weak translation", or an "artistic way", I'm sorry, but until God gives us the "correct" translation or personally edits the text to fit in with your beliefs, I still see no choice but to say that the bible is anti-evolution. If we can't judge by the text we have, what else are we supposed to judge by?-0And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.-21And God created great sea creatures, and every living thing that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind: and God saw that it was good.-.... 24And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kinds, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kinds: and it was so-... 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.-It does NOT say he created the Tucan and the cockatoo. it says he created the winged fowl after its kind. It certainly allows for change, simply not changing between species. No common descent. Further, evolutionist tend to change the definition based on who they are arguing. If debating a christian, they will claim that evolution only asserts 'change' not common decent. The bible is not anti-change, nor is it anti-common decent as long as the common decent is limited to families of creatures. Divergence from one species to another has never been observed, and the bible is against that particular train of thought.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Making waves
by David Turell , Sunday, June 16, 2013, 15:19 (4179 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
... > Tony: 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.-This is the key. One specific variety of being has dominion over all. The ancient writers knew how special we are. Morphologically we look like apes. Sort of. They are not upright. They cannot use their hands as we do. And they cannot think as we do. Grouping us with them as primates makes no sense. They are primates, we are humans, but since the word primate means top of the heap, we should be in a separate group, called primates,and they should be given a new name; perhaps 'simians' > > Tony:It does NOT say he created the Tucan and the cockatoo. it says he created the winged fowl after its kind. It certainly allows for change, simply not changing between species. No common descent. Further, evolutionist tend to change the definition based on who they are arguing. If debating a christian, they will claim that evolution only asserts 'change' not common decent. The bible is not anti-change, nor is it anti-common decent as long as the common decent is limited to families of creatures. Divergence from one species to another has never been observed, and the bible is against that particular train of thought.-Tony, you point out that the bible favors punctuated equilibrium but apply it to large families. The fossil history suggests that point of view.
Making waves
Both David and Tony have claimed that the bible is not anti-evolution. -TONY: It does NOT say he created the Tucan and the cockatoo. it says he created the winged fowl after its kind. It certainly allows for change, simply not changing between species. No common descent. -And that is the whole point. TONY: The bible is not anti-change, nor is it anti-common decent as long as the common decent is limited to families of creatures. Divergence from one species to another has never been observed, and the bible is against that particular train of thought.-In other words, the bible is against the theory that ALL living organisms descended from common ancestors, and this is the great rift between creationists and evolutionists. Once again let me quote Darwin, whose whole theory is geared to the concept of common descent:-In contrast to "authors of the highest eminence [who] seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been separately created", he believes that "all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch," and so "we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken..." (Recapitulation and Conclusion)-Of course you are free to believe that Darwin was wrong, but don't tell me the bible is not anti-evolution!-DAVID: The bible is to be interpreted, not rigidly translated from the ancient words.-And so if the bible as Tony himself interprets it is anti-evolution, we can say it's not anti-evolution because it doesn't matter what the bible says, we can simply make up our own version.-BBELLA: In other words, dhw, the Bible is a perfect example for Quantum Reality. What is an agnostic to do with that? Lol-Laugh with you, BBella! According to David, the bible means what you want it to mean. So an atheist can tell us that whenever the bible mentions God, it's simply a figure of speech, an image, a fiction, a fairy tale. What is a theist to do with that? Lol-In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless.
Making waves
by David Turell , Sunday, June 16, 2013, 21:28 (4178 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless.-The Jewish sages have spent over a thousand years developing commentaries on the bible. If one can look at the simple words for meanings, as you demand,why are they still producing commentaries? The bible is an allegory. There is more hidden in it than meets the simple eye.
Making waves
dhw: In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless.-DAVID: The Jewish sages have spent over a thousand years developing commentaries on the bible. If one can look at the simple words for meanings, as you demand,why are they still producing commentaries? The bible is an allegory. There is more hidden in it than meets the simple eye.-And how many of these scholars have interpreted the Genesis account as meaning that humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor? We have no idea how much of the bible is allegory, how much is history, how much is pure fiction, but since millions of people still believe in the bible's version of separate creation and are hostile to Darwin's theory of common descent, you can scarcely IGNORE what the bible says! You and Tony have stated categorically that it is not anti-evolution, and that is the statement I'm disputing. In the Genesis account, even according to Tony's interpretation, the text clearly argues for separate creation, as against the theory that ALL SPECIES including humans are "the lineal descendants" from the earliest organisms. I've challenged you to find a way of interpreting this particular text to show that it is not opposed to Darwin's theory. If you cannot do so, then none of your justified generalizations and none of your references to other passages concerning swarms of creatures, eons and the Big Bang can alter the fact that the only biblical version we know is pro separate creation of species and anti common descent, and is therefore anti-evolution. As I said to Tony, it's entirely up to you whether you believe in common descent or you believe in separate creation. Darwin repeatedly argued that his theory was perfectly compatible with belief in a creator God, and many theists including yourself find no difficulty in combining those two theories. But Darwin's is not compatible with the account given in the bible as we know it. Find me a different version of Genesis, or give me a Darwinian interpretation of the account we know, and I might take your claim more seriously!
Making waves
by David Turell , Monday, June 17, 2013, 17:41 (4178 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As I said to Tony, it's entirely up to you whether you believe in common descent or you believe in separate creation. Darwin repeatedly argued that his theory was perfectly compatible with belief in a creator God, and many theists including yourself find no difficulty in combining those two theories. But Darwin's is not compatible with the account given in the bible as we know it. Find me a different version of Genesis, or give me a Darwinian interpretation of the account we know, and I might take your claim more seriously!-Once again, the interpretation is easy. Use eon for yom. Kinds of animals and plants were developed over long periods. The bible doesn't say how kinds were created, just that they were, but that approach allows for a God guided evolution. Stop being so literal.
Making waves
dhw: As I said to Tony, it's entirely up to you whether you believe in common descent or you believe in separate creation. Darwin repeatedly argued that his theory was perfectly compatible with belief in a creator God, and many theists including yourself find no difficulty in combining those two theories. But Darwin's is not compatible with the account given in the bible as we know it. Find me a different version of Genesis, or give me a Darwinian interpretation of the account we know, and I might take your claim more seriously!-DAVID: Once again, the interpretation is easy. Use eon for yom. Kinds of animals and plants were developed over long periods. The bible doesn't say how kinds were created, just that they were, but that approach allows for a God guided evolution. Stop being so literal.-Evolution says that kinds evolved from earlier kinds, not that they were "created" or "made" by God, and most important of all, evolution says that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, not that God specially created man out of the dust of the ground and made woman from Adam's rib. As I keep saying, long periods are not the issue here, which is no doubt why you prefer to cherry-pick that part of the text and gloss over the part which forms the basis of the biblical creationist (i.e. anti-evolution) argument. However, your fellow theist Tony acknowledges that the bible is anti-common descent, and since he first stated that the bible was not anti-evolution, I assume that he now recants. You will not recant because you are as stubborn as I am!
Making waves
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 18, 2013, 15:24 (4177 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Evolution says that kinds evolved from earlier kinds, not that they were "created" or "made" by God, and most important of all, evolution says that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, not that God specially created man out of the dust of the ground and made woman from Adam's rib. As I keep saying, long periods are not the issue here, which is no doubt why you prefer to cherry-pick that part of the text and gloss over the part which forms the basis of the biblical creationist (i.e. anti-evolution) argument. However, your fellow theist Tony acknowledges that the bible is anti-common descent, and since he first stated that the bible was not anti-evolution, I assume that he now recants. You will not recant because you are as stubborn as I am!-Isn't the theory of theistic evolution a form of creationism? Then the bible is correct.
Making waves
dhw: Evolution says that kinds evolved from earlier kinds, not that they were "created" or "made" by God, and most important of all, evolution says that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, not that God specially created man out of the dust of the ground and made woman from Adam's rib. As I keep saying, long periods are not the issue here, which is no doubt why you prefer to cherry-pick that part of the text and gloss over the part which forms the basis of the biblical creationist (i.e. anti-evolution) argument. However, your fellow theist Tony acknowledges that the bible is anti-common descent, and since he first stated that the bible was not anti-evolution, I assume that he now recants. You will not recant because you are as stubborn as I am!-DAVID: Isn't the theory of theistic evolution a form of creationism? Then the bible is correct.-Which theory of theistic evolution? To avoid convoluted arguments about "kinds", let's cut to the major controversy: us humans! A theistic version would be that God created the mechanism for evolution, which he implanted in the earliest forms of life. These then evolved in an unbroken succession all the way through millions of different species right through to us: common descent ... we and the chimps go back to homochimpo, who goes back to bac(k)teria and God's amazing mechanism. But, disregarding all the other "kinds" just to keep this simple, the bible tells us that God specially created humans. There is no way you can twist Genesis to say that it means anything other than special creation, and if you argue that it doesn't actually mean what it says, you're simply saying the bible is not anti-evolution because we should ignore what it says and make up our own version. If God created the evolutionary mechanism, but stepped in to do a bit of separate creating whenever he felt like it, with us as the prime example - which is perhaps Tony's belief and yours ... the bible would indeed be correct. But separate creation is anti-evolution. Ergo the bible would still be anti-evolution.
Making waves
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 19, 2013, 17:40 (4176 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If God created the evolutionary mechanism, but stepped in to do a bit of separate creating whenever he felt like it, with us as the prime example - which is perhaps Tony's belief and yours ... the bible would indeed be correct. But separate creation is anti-evolution. Ergo the bible would still be anti-evolution.-You have finally hit upon it. What I believe and I think Tony does. Separate creation without evolution is what I have never discussed in relating evolution to the bible.
Making waves
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, June 20, 2013, 04:50 (4175 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Thursday, June 20, 2013, 05:05
dhw: In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless..... You and Tony have stated categorically that it is not anti-evolution, and that is the statement I'm disputing. In the Genesis account, even according to Tony's interpretation, the text clearly argues for separate creation, as against the theory that ALL SPECIES including humans are "the lineal descendants" from the earliest organisms. I've challenged you to find a way of interpreting this particular text to show that it is not opposed to Darwin's theory. If you cannot do so, then none of your justified generalizations and none of your references to other passages concerning swarms of creatures, eons and the Big Bang can alter the fact that the only biblical version we know is pro separate creation of species and anti common descent, and is therefore anti-evolution. > -That is why I specifically made clear precisely which version, or sub-version, of evolution is acceptable in biblical terms: all things change, all things evolve, but within constraints that can not be crossed. -You are making distinctions that need not be made. To evolve means to change. The biblical writings do not argue against change. They argue against abiogenesis. They argue against cross-species boundary crossing, i.e. a bird from a reptile. But you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Change happens! It has been observed! However, abiogenesis has not been. Species spontaneous generating or morphing into other species has not been. -Common decent, in a more limited scope than is generally applied is also acceptable. For example, there are hundreds of 'breeds' of dogs, and it is reasonable to conclude that they all derived from a common ancestor. However, we have never seen a dog become more than a dog of a different type. I am not sure why anyone would think that science and theism are mutually exclusive. That would, by definition, be insanity. -To address the later topic of specially created human, I have no doubt that was the case, but I also can not substantiate it with anything other than this one thought: -All documented discoveries of the 'homo' variety show traces of being distinctly human, even if they are humans of different stature, culture, or build.-All recorded discoveries of simians have been consistent with what we would expect of simians. -In those few cases where it was claimed that they found missing links, they have invariably either been discovered to be Hoaxes, or later discovered to actually be simian fossils. -In short, there is no OBSERVATIONAL evidence to support the CONJECTURE of common decent between humans and simians.-This gives us one REALLY strong point of discussion. Where the bible discusses science that we have observed, it agrees. Where we get tripped up is with the conjecture regarding things that have NOT been observed. On one side, you have the evolutionist arguing that their conjecture is correct, on the other, you have the theist claiming that their (evolutionists) conjecture is wrong.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Making waves
by David Turell , Thursday, June 20, 2013, 15:12 (4175 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: This gives us one REALLY strong point of discussion. Where the bible discusses science that we have observed, it agrees. Where we get tripped up is with the conjecture regarding things that have NOT been observed. On one side, you have the evolutionist arguing that their conjecture is correct, on the other, you have the theist claiming that their (evolutionists) conjecture is wrong.-dhw's problem is he reads the bible too literally.
Making waves
dhw: If God created the evolutionary mechanism, but stepped in to do a bit of separate creating whenever he felt like it, with us as the prime example - which is perhaps Tony's belief and yours ... the bible would indeed be correct. But separate creation is anti-evolution. Ergo the bible would still be anti-evolution.-DAVID: You have finally hit upon it. What I believe and I think Tony does. Separate creation without evolution is what I have never discussed in relating evolution to the bible.-But now that you have opted explicitly for separate creation at least of humans, I trust you will withdraw your statement that the bible is not anti-evolution.-TONY: You are making distinctions that need not be made. To evolve means to change. The biblical writings do not argue against change. They argue against abiogenesis. They argue against cross-species boundary crossing, i.e. a bird from a reptile. But you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Change happens! It has been observed! However, abiogenesis has not been. Species spontaneous generating or morphing into other species has not been.-Distinctions have to be made if you insist that the bible is not anti-evolution. We need not argue over abiogenesis. It is irrelevant to evolution, even though atheist evolutionists believe in it. "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated" (Difficulties on Theory). And although evolution means change, when we are discussing the Theory of Evolution (I'm giving it capitals to emphasize the point) we mean something quite different, as you very well know. Common descent of ALL species, or what you call "cross-species boundary crossing" is the basis of the whole theory. This runs right through Origin. In his rejection of separate creation,for instance, Darwin asks: "Why should all the parts and organs of many independent beings, each supposed to have been separately created for its proper place in nature, be so commonly linked together by graduated steps?" (Difficulties on Theory). Apply this to chimps and humans, and you will understand why the theory rests on what ALL species (including birds and reptiles) have IN COMMON.-The rest of your post is dedicated to your scepticism concerning the common descent of unrelated species, and of humans and simians, with the following conclusion:-TONY: This gives us one REALLY strong point of discussion. Where the bible discusses science that we have observed, it agrees. Where we get tripped up is with the conjecture regarding things that have NOT been observed. On one side, you have the evolutionist arguing that their conjecture is correct, on the other, you have the theist claiming that their (evolutionists) conjecture is wrong.-As I have repeatedly emphasized, my objection was to the statement made by you and David that the bible is not anti-evolution. Do by all means let us debate the pros and cons of Darwin's theory, but please let us drop the pretence that the bible is not opposed to it. As a "strong point of discussion", I'd be most interested to know how you think your God might have (tentative auxiliary!) created humans. Do you, for instance, think he started from scratch with a handful of dust and his own formula for turning dust into flesh and organs etc., as per Genesis, or do you think he grabbed hold of a few existing simians and ... using psychokinesis? ... changed them so that they could walk upright and develop big brains, or did he separately create primitive hominids and let them evolve into homo sapiens, or keep dabbling with them till they were "sapiensed" to his satisfaction? My question may sound frivolous, but it isn't meant to be. It ties in with the panpsychist theory which I have been toying with, and of which David is understandably sceptical, though he refuses to be drawn on the equally nebulous subject of how God might possibly have worked his magic.
Making waves
by David Turell , Thursday, June 20, 2013, 20:20 (4174 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It ties in with the panpsychist theory which I have been toying with, and of which David is understandably sceptical, though he refuses to be drawn on the equally nebulous subject of how God might possibly have worked his magic.-How God does his thing, of course, is nebulous. and I keep repeating your reading of the words in the bible is much too literal.
Making waves
dhw: It ties in with the panpsychist theory which I have been toying with, and of which David is understandably sceptical, though he refuses to be drawn on the equally nebulous subject of how God might possibly have worked his magic.-DAVID: How God does his thing, of course, is nebulous. and I keep repeating your reading of the words in the bible is much too literal.-The suggestion that my reading of the bible is too literal is a poor defence of your attempt to reconcile the bible with evolution. Please reread the following
hw: If God created the evolutionary mechanism, but stepped in to do a bit of separate creating whenever he felt like it, with us as the prime example ... which is perhaps Tony's belief and yours ... the bible would indeed be correct. But separate creation is anti-evolution. Ergo the bible would still be anti-evolution.-DAVID: You have finally hit upon it. What I believe and I think Tony does.-You stated that the bible is not anti-evolution. You yourself believe in the separate creation of humans (and other "kinds"). Does this square with YOUR reading of the biblical version, or not? If it does, YOUR reading of the bible, like your own belief, makes the bible anti-evolution, which specifically argues that humans and chimps (and other "kinds") descend from a common ancestor. Nothing whatsoever to do with MY reading of the bible! DAVID (under "God and Reality"): I am so thankful I reached my conclusions from science alone.-First cause, eternal, conscious (we don't know how) energy deliberately created the universe and mechanisms for life and evolution (we don't know how) in order to produce humans, whom he created separately along with many other species (we don't know how), though others evolved without his interference; he chooses to remain hidden, because he wants to test our faith, and he wants us to learn the lessons of tough love.-I have learned an enormous amount from you about the science that underpins your beliefs, and your arguments are as powerful a case as one could wish for against the dogmas of atheism, but they ALWAYS run up against the problem that science cannot support the dogmas of theism. The conclusions I have listed above are gleaned from your various posts, but I would suggest that not one of them can possibly be reached from science alone.
Making waves
by David Turell , Friday, June 21, 2013, 19:38 (4174 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have learned an enormous amount from you about the science that underpins your beliefs, and your arguments are as powerful a case as one could wish for against the dogmas of atheism, but they ALWAYS run up against the problem that science cannot support the dogmas of theism. The conclusions I have listed above are gleaned from your various posts, but I would suggest that not one of them can possibly be reached from science alone.-I don't really know why we are discussing the creation subject of the bible. I don't use it. I have opinions about it. My opinion disagrees with yours. I do not follow the dogmas of theism. I follow my own conclusions. My view of the OT allows for the conclusion that theistic evolution fits the narrative. God can create species any way He wants to. Theistic evolution is one form of creationism. It fits what I see scientifically.
Making waves
dhw: I have learned an enormous amount from you about the science that underpins your beliefs, and your arguments are as powerful a case as one could wish for against the dogmas of atheism, but they ALWAYS run up against the problem that science cannot support the dogmas of theism. The conclusions I have listed above are gleaned from your various posts, but I would suggest that not one of them can possibly be reached from science alone.-DAVID: I don't really know why we are discussing the creation subject of the bible. I don't use it. I have opinions about it. My opinion disagrees with yours. I do not follow the dogmas of theism. I follow my own conclusions. My view of the OT allows for the conclusion that theistic evolution fits the narrative. God can create species any way He wants to. Theistic evolution is one form of creationism. It fits what I see scientifically.-The reason why we are discussing the biblical version of creation is that Tony wrote that it was not anti-evolution, and you agreed with him. If your opinion is that the bible does not advocate separate creation of humans and other "kinds", or that separate creation of humans and other "kinds" is not anti-evolution, we can end the discussion!-The second point at issue is your statement: "I reached my conclusions from science alone". These conclusions include the claim that God is a conscious being who deliberately created the universe and life, and whose purpose was to produce humans and test their faith. I would regard this as theistic dogma that has no basis in science, but of course there is no countering the argument that you follow your own conclusions and they fit what you see scientifically!
Making waves
by David Turell , Saturday, June 22, 2013, 15:57 (4173 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: If your opinion is that the bible does not advocate separate creation of humans and other "kinds", or that separate creation of humans and other "kinds" is not anti-evolution, we can end the discussion!-You have expessed my opinion. Accepting theistic evolution solves any problems. > > dhw: I would regard this as theistic dogma that has no basis in science, but of course there is no countering the argument that you follow your own conclusions and they fit what you see scientifically!-Thank you. The religion of Turell is uniquely mine.
Making waves
dhw: If your opinion is that the bible does not advocate separate creation of humans and other "kinds", or that separate creation of humans and other "kinds" is not anti-evolution, we can end the discussion!-DAVID: You have expessed my opinion. Accepting theistic evolution solves any problems.-Accepting any creed "solves" any problems - by shutting out those it can't deal with. In all our discussions, we need to define our terms. Here is a dictionary definition of "Creationism": "Creationism is the theory that living species have separate origins, rather than having evolved from a common ancestor (see EVOLUTION)." (New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought). Darwin's Theory of Evolution allows for theism but opposes creationism. In the light of your recent posts, how does your creed differ from this definition?-dhw: I would regard this [i.e. God deliberately creating the universe and life in order to produce humans and test their faith] as theistic dogma that has no basis in science, but of course there is no countering the argument that you follow your own conclusions and they fit what you see scientifically!-DAVID: Thank you. The religion of Turell is uniquely mine.-We are all unique, but some of us are more unique than others.
Making waves
by David Turell , Monday, June 24, 2013, 00:42 (4171 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Here is a dictionary definition of "Creationism": "Creationism is the theory that living species have separate origins, rather than having evolved from a common ancestor (see EVOLUTION)." (New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought). - Like Gertrude Stein, creationism is creationism is creationism. The definition you quote is a fundamentalist literal definition taken from the words of the Bible. It is not my definition. Any creation of species by God, by any method He choses, is a form of creationism. He obviously chose an evolutionary method.
Making waves
dhw: If your opinion is that the bible does not advocate separate creation of humans and other "kinds", or that separate creation of humans and other "kinds" is not anti-evolution, we can end the discussion!-DAVID: You have expessed my opinion. Accepting theistic evolution solves any problems.-Dhw: Accepting any creed "solves" any problems by shutting out those it can't deal with. In all our discussions, we need to define our terms. Here is a dictionary definition of "Creationism": "Creationism is the theory that living species have separate origins, rather than having evolved from a common ancestor (see EVOLUTION)." (New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought). Darwin's Theory of Evolution allows for theism but opposes creationism. In the light of your recent posts, how does your creed differ from this definition?-DAVID: Like Gertrude Stein, creationism is creationism is creationism. The definition you quote is a fundamentalist literal definition taken from the words of the Bible. It is not my definition. Any creation of species by God, by any method He choses, is a form of creationism. He obviously chose an evolutionary method.-I do like a bit of clarity now and then, so let me approach this from yet another angle. Do you believe 1) that your God created humans from scratch, 2) that humans and chimps sprang from a common ancestor without any interference by your God, or 3) that your God grabbed hold of a few existing homochimps and personally manipulated their genome so that they would walk upright and grow big brains?-If your answer is 1) or 3), and purely to satisfy my curiosity, please tell us if you think he intervened on separate occasions to create Lucy, Neanderthal man AND homo sapiens.
Making waves
by David Turell , Monday, June 24, 2013, 21:42 (4170 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I do like a bit of clarity now and then, so let me approach this from yet another angle. Do you believe 1) that your God created humans from scratch, 2) that humans and chimps sprang from a common ancestor without any interference by your God, or 3) that your God grabbed hold of a few existing homochimps and personally manipulated their genome so that they would walk upright and grow big brains? > > If your answer is 1) or 3), and purely to satisfy my curiosity, please tell us if you think he intervened on separate occasions to create Lucy, Neanderthal man AND homo sapiens.- My guess is answer is 3. He steered ape-forms into proto-human forms and let evolution finish the job.
Making waves
Dhw: I do like a bit of clarity now and then, so let me approach this from yet another angle. Do you believe 1) that your God created humans from scratch, 2) that humans and chimps sprang from a common ancestor without any interference by your God, or 3) that your God grabbed hold of a few existing homochimps and personally manipulated their genome so that they would walk upright and grow big brains?-If your answer is 1) or 3), and purely to satisfy my curiosity, please tell us if you think he intervened to create Lucy, Neanderthal man AND homo sapiens.-DAVID: My guess is answer 3. He steered ape-forms into proto-human forms and let evolution finish the job.-Thank you. If there is a God, I would find such an experimental version of evolution more convincing than your earlier one of preprogramming for humans, as it allows for the higgledy-piggledy bush with all its apparently random comings and goings. So too, of course, does the version with humans as part of an unguided process of experimentation by the "intelligent cell/genome", no matter what may have been the source of the latter. -Our starting point was the claim made by you and Tony that the bible is not anti-evolution. Your Theory of Theistic-Creationist-Darwinian-Common-Descent Evolution probably takes us as far as we can go on that issue, unless Tony has something to add.
Making waves
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 25, 2013, 18:36 (4170 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My guess is answer 3. He steered ape-forms into proto-human forms and let evolution finish the job. > > dhw: Thank you. If there is a God, I would find such an experimental version of evolution more convincing than your earlier one of preprogramming for humans, as it allows for the higgledy-piggledy bush with all its apparently random comings and goings. So too, of course, does the version with humans as part of an unguided process of experimentation by the "intelligent cell/genome", no matter what may have been the source of the latter. > > dhw: Our starting point was the claim made by you and Tony that the bible is not anti-evolution. Your Theory of Theistic-Creationist-Darwinian-Common-Descent Evolution probably takes us as far as we can go on that issue, unless Tony has something to add.-I think we are done. I'm not as precise as the religious folks who presume to know exactly who God is, or what He wants, or how He does it. They are overwhelmingly presumptuous.
Making waves
by BBella , Tuesday, June 18, 2013, 05:37 (4177 days ago) @ David Turell
> > dhw:In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless. > > The Jewish sages have spent over a thousand years developing commentaries on the bible. If one can look at the simple words for meanings, as you demand,why are they still producing commentaries? The bible is an allegory. There is more hidden in it than meets the simple eye.-I have probably asked this before, David, but what do you think of the Bible Code?
Making waves
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 18, 2013, 05:53 (4177 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: I have probably asked this before, David, but what do you think of the Bible Code?-Since I am Jewish I am interested in interpretations from the Old Testament. I'm not aware that the Mishna or the Talmud say anything about codes. I'm aware the New Testament has been explored for codes. Beyond that I have no knowledge or opinion. But people like to be conspiratorial.
Making waves
by BBella , Tuesday, June 18, 2013, 05:31 (4177 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The bible is to be interpreted, not rigidly translated from the ancient words. > > And so if the bible as Tony himself interprets it is anti-evolution, we can say it's not anti-evolution because it doesn't matter what the bible says, we can simply make up our own version. > > BBELLA: In other words, dhw, the Bible is a perfect example for Quantum Reality. What is an agnostic to do with that? Lol > > Laugh with you, BBella! According to David, the bible means what you want it to mean. So an atheist can tell us that whenever the bible mentions God, it's simply a figure of speech, an image, a fiction, a fairy tale. What is a theist to do with that? Lol > > In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless.-As goes the way of everything in Quantum Reality. Everything, including decent discussions, eventually find their way into it's black hole. Which is probably the real reason why Tibetan monks do not speak often. But as you say, dhw, it's also a good reason why ground rules need to be established; so to have a decent discussion that stays within the orbit of agreed upon realities.