Creationists defend Darwin film
On today's Sunday Sequence, the CEO of Creation Ministries UK responded to claims by one of the world's leading authorities on evolution that he was duped into appearing in an anti-Darwinian film.
Professor Peter Bowler, the author of a biography of Charles Darwin and many other books on the history of evolution, said he was interviewed for the The Voyage That Shook The World without realising that the film was being made by a Creationist group.
Professor Bowler, who has spent most of his academic career at Queen's University, Belfast, researching Darwinism, says he is unhappy to be appearing in what he regards as an "anti-Darwinian" film which offers an historically distorted portrait of Darwin. He claims that the film's narrative implies that Darwin's theory led him towards racism, whereas recent historical work by James Moore and Adrian Desmond shows that Darwin's scientific work was partly motivated by the naturalist's passionate opposition to racism.
Professor Bowler says he, along with his colleagues Sandra Herbert and Janet Browne, only discovered that they had inadvertently contributed to a Creationist film a month before the film's release. Peter Bowler also raised concerns about how the editing of his own interview could leave viewers with a false impression of his own perspective on Darwin.
Phil Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, acknoweged that his organisation established a "front company" called Fathom Media, because they were concerned that experts such as Peter Bowler would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an "overtly Creationist" production. "At the end of the day," he said, "[when] people see 'Creationist', instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to."
I asked Phil Bell if this method of securing an interview was "deceptive". He said: "Well, it could be called deceptive. But I think, at the end of the day, I would say that more people are concerned about how we've made a documentary, that's a world-class documentary, clearly with wonderful footage, with excellent interviews, and balanced open discussion."
Phil Bell also denied that his organisation had broken the ninth commandment by "bearing false witness" against Professor Bowler and his colleagues. "Nobody was told any lies," he said.
Watch the film trailer, below, which includes a short clip from Peter Bowler's interview.
The Voyage That Shook The World has already been screened in various churches in Britain. On Thursday 18 June, it was also screened in the Octagon Theatre at the University of Ulster in Coleraine. This was not an official University event, nor was it an event organised by the University's Chaplaincy. A spokesperson for the University of Ulster has told Sunday Sequence that various groups, including religious organisations, are free to rent its facilities, and that no endorsement of any events should be construed from the university's willingness to accommodate those events.
Update: Creation Ministries International has published an online "clarification" in response to this story.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I raised this point about the trailer several months ago on the Panda's thumb. It transpired then that none of the scientists/historians were aware they were appearing on a YEC film along with creationists such as Cornelius Hunter and Suart Burgess.
Still, I have a sense of déjà vu William:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file007.html
What the tape shows
Cut from previous interview with an Israeli biophysicist to interviewer in an obviously different room from the one in which RD has previously been shown.
Interviewer: "Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation, or an evolutionary process, which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
Cut to RD, who looks around the room, [shot holds for 11 seconds]
Cut back to interviewer, while RD begins speaking off camera
RD: "There's a popular misunderstanding of evolution [cut back to RD] that says that fish turned into reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals and that somehow we ought to be able to look around the world today and look at our ancestors and see the intermediate species (Dawkins goes on to explain)."
Complain about this comment
so-called christian ministries should not engage in deceit in order to put across their message, whatever that message is.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A Frog turns into a prince... we call this a fairy tale.
An ape turns into a human being.... we call this good science.
If macro evolution isn't a fairy tale for grown-ups.... Then I'm a glorified baboon!
Complain about this comment
The fact that they have to lie to get people to appear says a lot. If they had the strength of their convictions surely they would not need to stoop to such a level?
Sacha Baron Cohen uses the same sort of tactic in his various guises ( Borat/Ali G/Bruno ) and is only marginally funnier than creationism.......;-)
Complain about this comment
Notashamed116, tell me if you are ashamed at the use of deception by your fellow creationists?
Complain about this comment
Notashamed116, you should not be ashamed of being a "glorified baboon", for that is assuredly what you are, apart from the "glorified", and a marginal deviance of phylogenetic trajectory. Except, most baboons I have run across have considerably less arrogance and ignorance than your average creationist blowhard. The most pathetic and contemptible thing about creationists is indeed their lying and fraud, but a close second is their absolute refusal to engage constructively with the scientific evidence, or to examine their own prejudices. "Depart from me, ye cursed - I never knew you." Eternal damnation is too good for 'em. Be thankful *that* is a fairy tale.
-H
Complain about this comment
Notashamed116 your argument from incredulity is tenuous at best, just because you can't accept a claim because it is improbable does not make it fallacious. Evidence for the evolution of the vertebrate eye is numerous, right down to the molecular level. Add this to the fact that you have lifted your statement word for word (copy and paste is great right?) from the Creation Science Evangelism website http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=33&c=17 run by the already disgraced and imprisoned Kent Hovind.
For shame, for shame, and let us not even get started on the Glorified Baboon nonsense.
To truly accept and understand the validity of Theory of Evolution has taken me the best part of my Adult life; I have studied it, researched and published in the field. Even then I would say I only know a fraction of the sum of knowledge we have. However from my limited pool of knowledge I can state that there are literally thousands of examples of "textbook" evolution, for every spurious or erroneous claim made by creation "scientists".
I would love the opportunity to demonstrate the validity of evolution to church groups. I really don't see there being a huge amount of conflict between having a religious life at the same time accepting the most up to date theories in science. The problem as I see it, is that some people would rather not know.
Complain about this comment
Having said that if you really want to do some research on Animals Eyes, the Land and Nilsson book is a good place to get started.
You can find a preview here on google books,
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aAZ_YfVoCywC&dq=animal+eyes&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Hj-1vkT1gt&sig=Tqk6COsW350FGe80EJIytiD3sUY&hl=en&ei=HI4-SpW1G8S7jAeD_cj8Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10
Enjoy your reading Notashamed116!
Complain about this comment
Geneboy, *reading*? Aren't you being a little optimistic? ;-)
Complain about this comment
Chuckle,
Good point though, feel free to disengage brain and watch this then..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/quicktime/l_011_01.html
Complain about this comment
"This is done in spite of the fact that the alternative (creation or intelligent design) more adequately explains the observation."
Translation:
This is done in spite of the fact that the alternative (MAGIC or MAGIC) more adequately explains the observation.
Calling MAGIC by another name doesn't make it any less childish and idiotic.
Complain about this comment
would love the opportunity to demonstrate the validity of evolution to church groups. I really don't see there being a huge amount of conflict between having a religious life at the same time accepting the most up to date theories in science. The problem as I see it, is that some people would rather not know.
Well said Geneboy. You are quite correct, most of them just don't want to know, even the Presbyterian Church in Ireland which appears to be becoming increasingly young Earth creationist. One of the two screenings of CMI's film in NI was in Orangefield Presbyterian church yesterday evening, which surprised me as I always thought the minister there was quite sensible and sane and not in anyway extreme (who knows, maybe he was duped as well). The other venue by the way was the Ulster University campus in Coleraine, again, quite surprising that they managed to gain access to this establishment without anyone batting an eyelid.
Well done on spotting on the Hovind crap.
Complain about this comment
It is certainly arguable that CMI were - at best - unwise not to be completely open about who was behind the film, though - as Philip Bell pointed out - participants were made aware that it would be a documentary containing a variety of opinions about Darwin's observations and the conclusions he drew from them.
Having seen the film (it seemed clear from Will's interview today that he has not yet done so), I can honestly say that it does not come across as an anti-Darwin polemic, but rather as an encouragement to examine his conclusions in the light of more recent evidence, and also to give thoughtful consideration to the worldview which inevitably arises from his thinking. (ie how come his 'Voyage....shook the world'?)
Seems to me that is well worth cool-headed evaluation.
Complain about this comment
"an encouragement to examine his conclusions in the light of more recent evidence"
pastorphilip, in light of more recent evidence, the basic facts of evolution have become the strongest facts of science. Also, it's becoming obvious that all religions, including your Christian death cult, are idiotic fantasy.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Its not so much that Creation Ministries lied; its just that they smuggled the Bibles in the bread delivery. 'Man does not live by bread alone, but by ...'
Complain about this comment
in the light of more recent evidence
I'm all ears pastor philip. What is the "more recent evidence". Perhaps you could elaborate for us what this is (or more likely, what are the YEC claims made by CMI in the film) ?
Have CMI "more recent evidence" on the age of the Earth for example i.e. some peer reviewed research that shows the Earth/Universe is only a mere 6,000 years old, rather than 4.55/13.7 billion years respectively.
Complain about this comment
There is something really fishy about that documentaries website. The fake media company website www.fathom-media.com, www.thevoyage.tv and www.about-evolution.info were registered by a company called Domains by proxy in Scottsdale, Arizona. On their "Digging deeper" page Creation is listed with this http://www.creation.com/ and Evolution is supposedly represented here http://www.about-evolution.info/.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think they intentionally registered that .info site for the purposes of making their case look stronger than it is, to the layman?
Could just be a coincidence I guess. I really do want to see how evolution is represented though, because if it's an hour and a half of "Consider all theories, by the way here is Intelligent Design, wink wink" then I won't be a happy hypsilophodon.
Complain about this comment
And then there are the lies which are unashamedly repeated ad nauseam; like Haeckel's faked embryo illustrations in school textbooks. See Message 121. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbni/F2125955?thread=5580305&skip=120&show=20
Complain about this comment
Presumably, professor Peter Bowler was paid for his appearance in this film. If he did not read or understand his contract or didn't consider that his views might not be used in a way that would please him when taken in the full context of the work before he signed it, that is his problem. I wouldn't want to take his course now given that he can so easily be duped, nor would I accept his teachings on the basis of his word alone for that matter given his vulnerability in that regard. While Darwin may have had a questioning mind, apparently Bowler doesn't, his has more of a mercenary bent.
If Professor Bowler feels his statements were edited in such a way as to misrepresent his views and thereby discredit his professional reputation, I think he'd have a good case for a lawsuit. Short of that, he should just be grateful for the added income he obtained and perhaps spend it on something that would take his mind off his frustration. Perhaps he won't be so free to accept money for his words in the future. By this foolish action, he's already cheapened their value.
Complain about this comment
Pastorphilip
"Having seen the film ...I can honestly say that it does not come across as an anti-Darwin polemic, but rather as an encouragement to examine his conclusions in the light of more recent evidence, and also to give thoughtful consideration to the worldview which inevitably arises from his thinking. (ie how come his 'Voyage....shook the world'?)
Seems to me that is well worth cool-headed evaluation."
That seems like an odd statement coming from you given what you have said in the past. If you truly believe that the bible is the true and literal word of god and that god created the universe and man in six days then there is no room for thoughtful consideration or cool headed evaluation. That would imply doubt. If there is no doubt, there is nothing to consider and no amount of scientific evidence or theoretical proof is sufficient to negate the word of god. Do you think your own faith is being tested or in doubt? Your words here seem to suggest it.
Complain about this comment
The producers intention for this documentary was to create a film that would be attractive to secular broadcasters and NOT an "anti-Darwin creationist polemic", thus the production company Fathom Media was set-up to produce and market the film. Which by the way, is standard practice in television land.
Clearly, as broadcasters would not be keen on a creationist diatribe, it would be important to gather and represent views from those who are possibly antagonistic to a creationist perspective, thus it seems entirely appropriate that the production company be separated from the parent organization (CMI). (Comments to this blog demonstrate an abundance of a-priori prejudice against creationists!)
In listening to the programme yesterday, it seems somewhat ironic for a BBC presenter to criticize the manner in which consent for interviews were obtained. Isn't that what investigative documentary making is all about???
Besides, all participants were told that there would be a balanced, but 'critical examination' of Darwin's life, work and the various influences on his thinking; canvassing a wide-spectrum of views from scientists and scholars. There were specific references to the fact that creationists would be interviewed.
As to why a historian like Prof. Bowler is so upset about having his views presented in a documentary by creationists, perhaps says something about his own prejudices. Where is his willingness as a scholar to inform us about Darwin, regardless of who is making the doco?
Professor Bowler would indeed be justified in complaining if the producers mislead him about the purpose, approach and content of the doco, and delivered a product that is substantially different from what he was told. Such a shame Mr Crawley didn't ask him about that! Another great question would have been, "If the BBC had produced the exact same documentary, would Prof. Bowler still be upset?". However Mr. Crawley seemed to be intent on sensationalizing a perceived fiction that creationists lied. Where were the hard questions for Prof. Bowler? Interesting that he wasn't given the opportunity to comment on the documentary as a whole - perhaps he didn't want to go there...
If some of you can actually put to aside your blatant bias and are brave enough to see the film, you will also see that Prof. Bowler makes many other insightful comments apart from his 'Darwin was a racist' section. Yet he seems to be silent on how that material was used. BTW, why is that 'evos' are so defensive about Darwin's views on race? Has anyone actually looked up a dictionary definition of racism lately? Seems to pretty accurately describe Darwin's views on so-called 'savages'...
It would be great to have an informed debate on the relative merits (or otherwise) of the actual film, rather than ill-informed rants about the sub-human status of creationists!!! Wishful thinking, perhaps...
Complain about this comment
For the attention of notashamed. We believe in an invisible man. We call him god.
Complain about this comment
Lets be honest here, does anyone posting really understand both astro physics and biology? If you do, congratulations and can I meet you to have a conversation or 7.
The fact of the matter is that almost every scientific idea is a theory, even when it has been proved over and over again, it remains a theory because science dictates that even 1 exception can disprove the theory .
Religion is different. Because no matter what the religion is, the followers and their version of god (I'm intentionally using lower-case for god) insist that without proof, or testing and frequently even with an availability of a myriad exceptions, that they are right. (Gospel Truth)
In fact many religious people get annoyed or even violent should anyone even question them or their beliefs, let alone try to find proof that god exists or not(the crusades, the spanish inquisition, the grand schism, the Nazi's or numerous other religion inspired wars/massacres for example).
Darwinism perfectly explains why some "lower" species have better eyes or ears or hearts. Simply they needed them to survive. Ergo, Survival of the fittest. In fact, humans are a great example themselves. We still have an appendix, which our ancestors needed because of what they used to eat, but because our diet has changed is no longer a necessity and is nothing less than a ticking time-bomb for many.
Not every previous species led to man. In the same way that not every previous species led to beaver or pig. Notashamed116, your argument is nonsensical, your understanding is limited and your god does not exist.
Also the most convincing argument that god does not exist actually comes from the bible. In genesis, I believe, it states that god made us in his own image and that we were masters of all the land and all the animals.
If that really is true and we are the pinnacle of god's creation, and assuming he is omnipotent (the bibles perception not mine) then he's a cowboy builder or a weekend DIY man rather than a professional because there is no way that humanity could be be pinnacle of creation.
Complain about this comment
JMK1973 wrote:
"In fact many religious people get annoyed or even violent should anyone even question them or their beliefs"
Classic! You just forgot to add "insulting" along with annoyed and violent... More evidence that Evolution IS a religion! :-)
You have also unwittingly aligned Nazism (with it's adherence to Darwinian Evolution) to other so-called religious extremism. How apt!
However if you are going to cite the old canards of pseudo-christianity and "other religion inspired wars", perhaps you should be fair and also cite the horrendous and deadly impact of atheistic belief systems in the 20th Century. Other religious wars pale by comparison...
Also, have you read Genesis? It tells you very clearly what happened to the "pinnacle of God's creation". A "very good Creation" cursed by the selfish impulse of the first human couple. Mock if you wish, but it makes sense of the world that I see around me. You can see how potentially great it could be, but its been largely screwed up by us. After all who doesn't want to be his/her own little god? Me, me, me...it's all very attractive (in our mind!). Not so great for the world around us unfortunately.
Complain about this comment
JMK1973, I worry that you are reinforcing an incorrect understanding of the word "theory" in our non-scientific brethren. "Theory" has (>=)two meanings, one colloquial: "I have this theory that Mrs Bloggs shot JR", and one which reflects our scientific understanding of something.
Evolutionary theory is not the former; it is a corpus of detailed factual and procedural knowledge that allows us to explain what we observe in the natural world, vis a vis biology. The FACT of evolution is that species have evolved and continue to evolve - no-one disputes that apart from a few wackos (we call them "creationists"). The THEORY of evolution is our understanding of how that process takes place (natural selection is a major component, but also genetic drift, sexual selection, etc), rates, modes, developmental morphology etc.
It is one of the great success stories of science, if not THE greatest.
This silly documentary will follow the catastrophic (from the point of view of its funders and producers) "Expelled" into the trash.
Complain about this comment
Thanks korotiotio for your idea, I appreciate it
Bi Weekly Payments
Complain about this comment
korotiotio, is there any chance of you giving us an example or two to back up this statement?
"perhaps you should be fair and also cite the horrendous and deadly impact of atheistic belief systems in the 20th Century. Other religious wars pale by comparison..."
Because on it's own it seems pretty ridiculous. Is that the sound of straws being clutched I hear?
Complain about this comment
H
Who *did* shoot JR? Never actually got around to working that out.
What happened to this blog, BTW? What on earth possessed someone to put up a thread on evolution with fundies roaming the blog?
No offence to Pastor P. He's integrity in spades, and knows where to draw the line. He just says what he believes. But some of the arguments here...I dunno.
GV
Complain about this comment
Presumably, professor Peter Bowler was paid for his appearance in this film. If he did not read or understand his contract or didn't consider that his views might not be used in a way that would please him when taken in the full context of the work before he signed it, that is his problem. I wouldn't want to take his course now given that he can so easily be duped, nor would I accept his teachings on the basis of his word alone for that matter given his vulnerability in that regard. While Darwin may have had a questioning mind, apparently Bowler doesn't, his has more of a mercenary bent.
Marcus: It would make not one iota difference.
In 1997, YECs under the front name of Keziah productions (a front for AiG) tricked their way into the home of Richard Dawkins. When Dawkins realised this he asked them to leave. It didn't matter. The YECs still heavily edited the footage and used it any in order to portray Professor Dawkins as stupid and not knowing what he was talking about. This is no different. See my link in post 2 for more.
Oh, and by the way, in Australia there's actually a law against this type of thing. Had CMI filmed this in Queensland they almost certainly would have faced proscecution. The UK laws do seem somewhat lax in this area.
does anyone posting really understand both astro physics
Astro physicists do admit that the more we find out obout modern cosmology, the less we understand. However, that does not point in anyway to a 6000 year old Earth/Universe. All the eveidence that we have before us reveals a Universe 13.7 billion years old, not 6,000 as the makers of this film believe. Do not forget that JMK 1973 that modern cosmology is really in it's infancy, les that 100 years old.
The fact of the matter is that almost every scientific idea is a theory, even when it has been proved over and over again, it remains a theory because science dictates that even 1 exception can disprove the theory .
The fact is JMK1973 that gravity is still only a theory. I think the problem is that when you were at school you either weren't taught, or didn't learn what a theory actually is. You seem to be confused between theory and hypothesis. I suggest you have a look at this excellent video from a University lecturer who explains the difference very well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/creationists_defend_darwin_fil.html
Complain about this comment
Gosh, don't quite know what went wrong there. Here's the correct link to the video. As I say, it explains the difference very well JMK1973:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdWMcMW54fA
Oh, and by the way pastorphilip, i'm still waiting on that "new evidence" from the film that you talked about earlier.
Complain about this comment
"by your words you will be condemned."
The BBC secretly/deceptively film in Iran, Zimbabwe and a host of other countries.
Surely you won't claim that smuggling food to persecuted minority groups in a closed country is wrong, although that clearly involves deception. Surely you won't claim that hiding Jews from the Nazis was wrong either, although that also clearly involves deception.
The Bible condemns the motive behind the action, that is how true judgment works - hence the distinction between manslaughter and murder..."For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery"
A recent BBC clip showing an interview with a heavy metal rock group in China not only contained content which would have been construed by the Chinese authorities as anti-government, but also endangered the musicians interviewed, who openly spoke their minds as they sat beside their table covered in empty beer bottles. This is an example of deception (on the part of the interviewer) that endangered others for selfish gain. CMI didn't produce this film to make money, but in order to reveal the truth to those indoctrinated by evolution.
Regarding the Ninth commandment - it actually prohibits bearing false testimoney against ones neighbour. What that entails is giving false evidence against them or making baseless accusations.
Perhaps Will should spend less time making baseless accusations and just watch the documentary for himself.
Complain about this comment
Paulmcfarland, does the 9th commandment carry with it any obligation on the part of those who bear the false information and use it in testimony (as assuredly happened, for instance, in the Kitzmiller trial, when the creationists repeatedly lied under oath) to verify whether their testimony is true or not?
It's a tricky one. For instance, you perhaps think that creationism is true. This is a false belief, but it is one that you (maybe) hold sincerely. However, you have not subjected this belief to proper scrutiny (how could you? If you did, you would know it to be complete rubbish), so should you be blamed before god when he is totting up your violations of C9?
You claim that the ends justify the means (well, that's what I'm assuming by your use of the term "motive"), but the problem is that most theologians nowadays recognise that Genesis is NOT a literal description of how the universe began, and they acknowledge the truth of evolution and the seriously boggling antiquity of the universe.
It is an interesting question. We know that creationists are *wrong* - how much can we hold them culpable for ignorance or intentional malice?
BTW, Will, you mentioned that Peter Bowler is a leading authority on evolution - this is not correct (at least as far as I know! Correct me if I'm wrong) - he is a leading authority on *Darwin* and the history of evolutionary thought, but he is a historian, not a scientist. All round good guy, though - you've had him on the show before, and he's excellent. Just a minor quibble. :-)
Complain about this comment
but in order to reveal the truth to those indoctrinated by evolution.
That's not what they told Peter Bowler when they interviewed him, or what Philip Bell said to William Crawley on yesterday morning's Sunday Sequence.
Complain about this comment
Still waiting on pastorphilip's new information.
Complain about this comment
HenryDrummond - I'd be happy to:
According to one estimate by Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii (the scholar who first coined the term democide - 'death by government'), communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.(http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)
That's just communism (aka state-mandated atheism). Probably don't need to mention the Nazis...
As for the Crusades, I wasn't there to count, but Brian Dunning in his blog, estimated 500,000. (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076)
I don't think the Spanish Inquisition really rates on that scale. But as Brian points out, it doesn't really matter what causes it - people like to kill people. Lot's of them. However some are acting consistently with their belief system, others aren't.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan - 'ends justify the means' describes a situation where the end result is desirable and so sinful/criminal/immoral/unethical means are used to obtain that end result.
However I just explained that the 'means' did not break the ninth commandment, so there is no problem before God. Or perhaps if it did break C9 you could explain how it did, giving reference to the ninth commandment? (Exodus 20)
Do you believe the Bible?
Complain about this comment
korotiotio, while there can be no doubt of the amount of people killed in the examples you have given your insistance on it being a product of atheism is what I have a problem with. While Stalin was an atheist, his reasons for the killing of so many people (43,000,000) were not for atheistic reasons. They were purely political reasons. While the example you provided me with says "In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion" it does not say it was religious, nor does it say that atheism was the reason for the millions of dead.
While you probably don't need to mention the Nazi's I will, I will do so because while Hitler on some occassions mentioned he was an atheist, on other occassions to different audiences he actually played up his Catholic background. It could be said that he was playing up different sides to himself to suit his audience and gain favour with them. He ordered the deaths of so many million people there is no doubt about this but you cannot say that he did this because he was an atheist. He did this because of the need to exterminate what he saw as his enemies in war and the enimies of the state he wanted to create. There is no evidence that I am aware of that he sought to kill so many people just because he was an atheist. Is there any evidence of this, perhaps you can provide me with some. While you are at it can you provide any evidence prove or disprove that Hitler had so many people killed because of his Catholic background?
I think that your eagerness to attribute the deaths of the millions in your examples to atheism is the downfall of your argument. Which is why in my first reply to you I mentioned the clutching of straws.
Complain about this comment
JKLMNOP1793
"For the attention of notashamed. We believe in an invisible man. We call him god."
One day I sat upon the stair
And saw a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
O god I wish he'd go away
"Lets be honest here, does anyone posting really understand both astro physics and biology? If you do, congratulations and can I meet you to have a conversation or 7."
What makes you think I'd even consider wasting my time speaking with you?
PJH
"Marcus: It would make not one iota difference.
In 1997, YECs under the front name of Keziah productions (a front for AiG) tricked their way into the home of Richard Dawkins. When Dawkins realised this he asked them to leave. It didn't matter. The YECs still heavily edited the footage and used it any in order to portray Professor Dawkins as stupid and not knowing what he was talking about. This is no different."
Actually it is very different. First of all, in the current case, since this was known in advance to be used in a movie, Bowler had or should have insisted on a clearly written contract that specified his rights that he agreed to. He was a fool if he didn't. If he was too foolish to not hire a lawyer or not read it himself and understand it before he signed it, that's his problem. If the producers violated the contract, then there is a case for a lawsuit for breach of contract. In Dawkins case, you say the material was heavily edited thereby misrepresenting his views. Since this affects his professional reputation and his ability to earn money, under contract law in the US he'd have a case for a lawsuit. If these people did not leave when he told them to and presented material they obtained afterwards, they were also guilty of criminal tresspass and should have been prosecuted criminally and sued civilly. Did Dawkins do that? In either case, one thing they have in common, if you are a renowned scientist with a reputation to protect and an interview is requested of you, you'd better be careful of whom you talk to, what you say, under what circumstances, how it will be used, and have legally binding contracts to back up your rights. Not sure of the laws in NI but in the US they are quite specific.
Kyoto
"Also, have you read Genesis? It tells you very clearly what happened to the "pinnacle of God's creation". A "very good Creation" cursed by the selfish impulse of the first human couple. Mock if you wish, but it makes sense of the world that I see around me."
Well, it points to just how incompetent the god who created the universe is. Within a couple of chapters the two people he created broke the one rule he laid down for them. The more we learn, the worse god looks. Stars exploding, galaxies crashing into each other. If people who drove cars were always crashing into things we'd take their driver's license away.
It seems to me that as soon as a believer tries to debate scientific theories based on scientific observations and logic whether twisted, distorted, skewed, or otherwise in order to try to prove that they contradict their religion, he is proving he does not have faith becuase if you believe in god the way many say they do, then you take that belief on the strength of what it says in the bible or koran or whatever book they find that faith in alone. If that's not good enough for them, then their faith isn't unshakable.
BTW, it seems to me that with the making of every frame or cell of this film, the producers have created another craven image, each one a violation of gods commandment.
Complain about this comment
HenryDrummond
Certainly Hitler played different sides to win support. The Catholic church was an influence that he could not ignore (and which shared his anti-Jewish sentiment). However Hitler actually set to work rewriting the Bible - removing all traces of Jewishness and replacing them with arianism. So it cannot be claimed by any means that he was a Christian - rather than modelling himself on Christ, he modelled Christ on himself. Just google 'Nazi Bible'.
He may not have been an out and out atheist (I don't believe anyone truly is) however he certainly used evolution as the perfect opportunity in the removal of 'inferior races'. Regardless of what he professed to be, evolution was the perfect tool for his goal of extermination of the Jewish race.
Complain about this comment
paulmcfarland
Ok you may not believe that anyone is truly an out and out atheist, but you are imposing your Christian values onto other people (that's what one of my main problems with christians is) so how can you be objective enough to realise that there are true 'out and out' atheists?
Also if Hitler set about to rework the bible surely this suggests he possessed a basic Christian faith in wanting to do this? It's a trait that a lot of Christians possess, although they usually dont rewrite the bible they just twist what is in it to suit their own bigotry.
Also, he didnt use evolution to remove inferior races. How can one use a living process for such ends? What I think you meant is he used Darwins theory as a basis for his actions (sorry for being pedantic). Pardon my asking, but what of it? That does not prove that Darwin was wrong or evil. (Anyone can manipulate a theory or work for evil ends. People do it with the Bible daily.) Nor does it prove that the people he killed were done so out of some atheistic zeal.
Complain about this comment
5. At 6:00pm on 21 Jun 2009, NotAshamed116
"If macro evolution isn't a fairy tale for grown-ups.... Then I'm a glorified baboon"
Another example of a complete misunderstanding of the scientific process, mixed with extreme narcissism, and the crowing of willful ignorance. The argument of personal incredulity doesn't win any Nobel prizes, and the fact that you are not ashamed of showing yourself as a dunderhead, portrays you as more of an ostrich than a baboon.
The mendacity of these directors of creationist propaganda knows no bounds, as evidenced by the duplicity of the horrendous "expelled" travesty. If you need to dupe respected scientists to quote them out of context in these gutter documentaries, reveling in half-truths, pseudo-science and outright lies, then what kind of message does that send about your integrity.
Complain about this comment
Paul, Hitler was a Catholic, and did not just play up his background - he actively claimed to be doing the will of god and of Christ. He had no knowledge of Darwin, and Darwin is not mentioned *once* in Mein Kampf. Furthermore, Nazi eugenics owes nothing to an understanding of biological evolution, and more to the pseudoscience of "racial purity" that was coming from the world of animal breeding. Of course nowadays we know that human "races" are in fact extremely biologically close, and that the type of gratuitous racism we see in (for example) the bible is unfounded.
No, I do not believe the bible, because the bible gets lots and lots of things wrong. From the very first chapter, in fact, right to the very last. It is a purely man-made creation - surely everyone knows this? Presumably you do *think* you believe the bible - would that be Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 that you believe? Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on one donkey or two? Where in the OT is the prophecy that Jesus would come from Nazareth? These are just a couple of issues that you would need to clarify, because I don't think you really believe the bible at all.
Atheism is not a creed or religion - it is simply non-belief in god. It is possible to be an atheist and a Christian, and many people are. Atheism is not responsible for Stalinism, just as Jesus the Nazarene was not responsible for the crusades. Atrocities happen when people give up their freedom of *thought* and convert it into the ghastly and destructive monstrosity that we call "belief". Occasionally I do describe myself as an atheistic Christian, but mostly a Freethinker or a Humanist.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan, many good points, I often wondered about being labeled and was uncomfortable with atheist, not through shame of being one in an overtly religious country (actually I'm extremely proud of what I am). I like to be described as a Freethinker too. I dont see why I should be defined in relation to something I don't believe in.
Complain about this comment
HenryDrummond
Yeah sorry didn't explain well - 'theory as a basis' would have been better.
You're absolutely right, anything can be twisted, one example of how the Bible has been twisted is the misuse of 'mark of cain' to refer to African black slaves centuries back (when clearly it means something else since Cain's descendants would have been wiped out in the flood).
Where I believe the theory of evolution to be different is that applying it to day to day living (to not let scientific knowledge change our worldview would be foolish indeed) provides the foundation for a worldview that does not need to be twisted to be anti-human(anti-life for life's sake)...if you are an evolutionist and an atheist what is your view on old people, the disabled etc. Surely human life has no instrinsic or absolute value - only relative. What is the difference between weeding the garden and ethnic cleansing for example?
Now don't get me wrong - I am not saying that because its logical application is immoral that it must be wrong/untrue. However I find it strange that things we know to be morally right by our conscience - such as 'killing is bad' are contradicted in nature. I would say that there are two possible conclusions:
1.nature (and ourselves included) has to some extent become corrupted and so violates conscience (which is higher)
2.our morals such as beliefs regarding the holocaust being evil are simply misguided and out of step with nature eg.ant behaviour etc. etc.
Do you hold to either of these two points or do you propose something else?
Please remember that I am not making arguments as to the truth or fiction of evolution, but rather questioning its implications on our society - as that is also a highly controversial topic.
Complain about this comment
Getting back to the film,
I watched it for the first time on Thursday and thought the production was of the highest quality excelling many of the well produced National Geographic/Discovery documentaries.
I'm quite sure that those who have thus far dismissed the film as Creationist drivel have yet yo see it. Until a person watches the film I feel it would be unfair to flame it.
The film is a extremely respectful summary of Darwin's life and re-enacts his early interest in nature. The visuals accompanying the Voyage of the Beagle are quite impressive depicting the landscapes and creatures that Darwin saw. Interestingly most of Darwin's dialogue in the film is his own writing.
The film is very well balanced concerning interviewees who genuinely express problems with the current evolutionary explanation of speciation. This includes hybridisation among Galapagos Iguanas, rapid cyclical change of Finch beaks - (Darwin left the Galapagos before he could realise this cyclical change).
The evidence for global catastrophism is demonstrated by Dr Emil Silvestru who shows polystrate fossils and uneroded shell beds 150m above sea level. These observations are inexplicable by the uniformatarian worldview which Darwin represented. Charles Lyell, the greatest exponent of uniformatarianism is mentioned as a strong influence on Darwin's thinking.
The film is not the controversial minefield that some are insisting upon, before commenting in favour or in criticism I would advise all to watch the film and enjoy.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan;
"It is possible to be an atheist and a Christian"
I don't see how. In the definition of the word "Christian" as I understand it, it is someone who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of god. Therefore if there is no god, Christ cannot be the son of god.
"Atheism is not a creed or religion - it is simply non-belief in god."
Atheism literally means without god. This means IMO a lack of belief in the existance of god. There are no atheist rituals or other trappings of what are termed religions. In a way, I find the term atheist unsatisfactory at least to describe myself. What I know is that there is no evidence to even suggest let alone prove at least to my satisfaction that a god or gods exist. That is what I know. What I believe is that god does not exist. They say you cannot prove a negative. I'm not so sure that is true. Should I take that logic as gospel on faith alone? It is not my habit to take anything on faith alone. I might as well be from Missouri, "The Show Me State."
Complain about this comment
No I don't think I do subscribe to those points. Well certainly the way you have worded them. I will try to put my point across as best I can because I'm not sure what you mean by some of the things you have said. Are you saying that the logical application of the theory of evolution is immoral? By who's standards is it immoral? I don't believe it to be.
How has nature become corrupted in relation to our conscience?
To me evolution can explain why we find evil deeds such as the holocaust abhorrent. We see that human suffering is wrong and it pains us to see other people in pain, I think that is our natural reaction. Sure humans have been killing one another from the beginning of their time. I'm sure that the first person to take another life probably did so without regret but as we have evolved, lived & grew as a race in close proximitry to one another we have gained a better understanding of what it is to be human & people that have taken other lives are bound to feel some sort of regret and pain due to a better understanding of human kind that can only have come about because we have evolved together over a vast amount of time, unless you take the example of soldiers or people (fanatics) who believe that god is on their side in taking lives. What I mean is that our natural reaction is that of sympathy or regret for human suffering unless we have been conditioned in such a way (by army training, believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of a holy book)which results in the situation that others of our kind are rendered valueless as human beings and therefore can be killed legitimately. I dont think that we naturally feel empathy with other humans or regret if we cause suffering to other humans because of some god character who told us through a book that such acts were right or wrong. We feel this because our line has had countless millennia worth of experience in which we have evolved from cave dweller to supposed modern human. We understand the human emotions of others because we have them ourselves. I know that in a fit of rage that someone can take a life but I dont think that when they cool down that they naturally regret the action because of what 'god' said. They regret it because of the countless millennia worth of evolutionary experience that they have inside them that tells them it is wrong. Does that make sense? I'm not pretending to be any sort of expert. It's just what I believe to be the case
Complain about this comment
Wow,
I didn't fully realise how divisive this Creation.com/Fathom media/Creation Ministries International Bunch were. They have hashed together a critique of Blueprint by what can only best be described as a secondary school teacher, ouch.
http://creation.com/once-upon-a-time-in-northern-ireland
I hope you read or have seen this William. Seems to me that this bunch aren't half as impartial as they claim.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan I don't see how the Bible is racist. It is against immorality and therefore opposed to immoral nations. However even the immoral nations of the Old Testament had opportunities for repentance. Jonah was sent to Ninevah in Assyria to preach to Israel's enemies - due to his sectarian prejudices he tried to run away instead.
God also explicitly stated that he gave the Canaanites opportunity (hundres of years) to repent before the Israelites came in conquest and judgment.
Regarding Genesis1/2 being different accounts, ch2 serves to elaborate on the earlier narrative. The 'Toledoth formula' ("these are the generations of") preceeds what some claim to be a different second version. The Toledoth was a common phrase found in ancient literature and connects the two accounts as part of the same narrative/version.
Regarding the 2/1 donkeys, this claim to an error is made by those who don't hold to inerrancy (obvious point), who also believe in the Q source or that Mark was the original source and Matthew and Luke used Mark plus Q plus M and L sources. Either way - according to source criticism of those who take the 2/1 donkeys as an error, Matthew would have read Mark and perhaps even Luke. This contradicts the whole idea that he would have misinterpreted the prophecy, since according to the proponents of this 'error', Matthew would have read their interpretation of the prophecy.
Regarding prophecy relating to Jesus being from Nazareth there is none. I presume you are referring to Matt2v23: and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene".. In Greek it is not always clear what should be in inverted commas, here is an example of a translation error. Perhaps better might be 'He shall be called a Nazarene so that what was said through the prophets might be fulfilled.' As Jesus fulfilled prophesies in Nazareth. If it was a purely made up prophecy why would Matthew have put it in? Or why would the early Greek speaking Church not have taken it out? There is obviously no real problem with this verse though some translations are clearly misleading.
Yes I do truly believe the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Without it you are utterly lost. No naturalistic worldview provides you with any foundation for morality, meaning or purpose.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan, MarcusAurelliusII, Abernethyt, Geneboy, HenryDrummond, peterJhenderson and all..
Which of you have seen the film? Just that as far as I can see that noone who is criticising the film has actually seen it...
Complain about this comment
Which of you have seen the film? Just that as far as I can see that noone who is criticising the film has actually seen it...
pastorphilip claims the film presents new scientific evidence on Darwins ideas. Still waiting for the evidence from pastorphilip.
On going to see the film Paul, why would I want to. ? CMI believe the Earth to be no more than 6,000 years old, 6/24hr. creation along with a global flood. This is neither supported by evidence or taught anywhere in science. Their is no debate within science about either the age of the Eartrh, biological evolution, or the fact that there wasn't a global flood.
Complain about this comment
reply to 51: Geneboy, very interesting link. Did you realise that the article attacking Blueprint was written by Phil Bell, the Creation Ministries director who was interviewed with Peter Bowler on Sunday Sequence. Bell's article on Blueprint is so scientifically illiterate that Will and others would be best advised to simply ignore it (as they seem to have done) on the basis that life is too short to bother with unscientific nonsense. It's bad enough that young earthers persist in their views, which they are entitled to do, but when they assume a superior tone in dismissing modern science, they invite complete contempt.
Complain about this comment
I have not seen this "documentary", but likewise I have not criticised it either. Any comments I have made have been responses to posts in this thread, or critiques/observations of Creation Ministries International. I have seen many a debate, and documentary presented from the Young Earth Creation; Gap; Intelligent Design camp to know the salient points prior to seeing it frankly although I would be keen to view and take notes for a critique.
As a scientist I would predict from prior observation that the majority of the documentary is presented as indisputable historical fact, interspersed with commentary that presents Evolutionary Biology as a field of science currently in crisis. I would also predict that said documentary leans heavily towards purporting "Intelligent Design" as a rival theory that is hotly debated in science circles.
Intelligent Design is neither a theory, nor a science, and it certainly isn't debated among science circles at the moment. Add to this that the "Designer" is never regarded as an intelligence alien to us, but rather the familiar old god of the Bible, Yahweh and you have a very weak platform for subsequent inquiry i.e. Yahweh did it, Zeus did it, Allah did it. Please organise a showing somewhere in Belfast, as I would love to be proven wrong in this case.
Complain about this comment
To Augustine,
I didn't even know about that part of Sunday Sequence. Just popping on Iplayer now to have a listen. Cheers for the heads up.
Complain about this comment
I find the different approaches to pastorphilip by two of our regular christians somewhat interesting. In post 19 peterjhenderson asks pastorphilip about what new evidence supposedly points towards creation. If that is meant to be a critical question, expecting no good answer whatsoever, then I'll go along with peterjhenderson. Given pastorphilips posts, I fully expect his claims to be utterly empty blurbs. Yet Graham credits him with integrity in spades in post 31. But despite peterjhendersons repeated reminders in posts 33, 37 and 54, we've not been presented with anything by pastorphilip to back up his claim. Which I thinks supports peterjhendersons approach over Grahams.
Graham, what on FSMs green earth makes you say pastorphilip has integrity in spades? The empty claim of evidence is an admittedly small indication of the opposite (and he might still present some. Hah!), but isn't that already more than what speaks in his favour? We often disagree, but I wouldn't deny that you make an effort to make substantial posts. With pastorphilip, it's always short blurbs singing the praises of god, not even a hint of thinking having gone into it. The guy is plain dumb and quite possibly a little bit dishonest in speaking out for his faith. So is your compliment to him a matter of complementing a fellow christian for fellow christians sake?
Maybe I'm far too negative. While I've followed the blog regularly the last few months, I haven't always done so. I may have missed something. Maybe you could list a few of pastorphilips posts that show some of his great integrity?
Complain about this comment
I assume you mean integrity in substantiating claims, etc.? If so, I have to agree with PK... where is it? Where is the new evidence for creationism? Where is ANY evidence for creationism?
Complain about this comment
Geneboy the showing in Belfast was on Saturday night so you missed it I'm afraid. A DVD will come out in a couple of months so you'll be able to see it then.
peterJhenderson - I'm sure you are familiar with much of the Creationist material but still, the documentary is well worth a watch. If the interviewees claim they didn't catch on that it was a 'Creationist documentry' then it can hardly be too biased. Watch it when it comes out and decide for yourself.
Complain about this comment
jpaulm #53
"Heliopolitan, MarcusAurelliusII, Abernethyt, Geneboy, HenryDrummond, peterJhenderson and all..
Which of you have seen the film? Just that as far as I can see that noone who is criticising the film has actually seen it..."
Perhaps you can point out where I criticized the film. The only comment I made about it is that the producers had every right to dupe Bowler and if he's angry about it now, he has nobody but himself to blame. But this brings up another point, the propensity of those who believe in a doctrine to see anyone who does not agree with it as an enemy and lump them all together.
PK;
"With pastorphilip, it's always short blurbs singing the praises of god, not even a hint of thinking having gone into it."
I think normally atheists simply deny the existance of god and leave it at that. I tried something different. Suspending disbelief and taking the bible at face value, I decided to see if within itself, it presented a coherent comprehensible story for creation as it proports to do. I relied on Pastorphilip because he presumably has some formal theological training and would have insight, understanding, and explanations laic contributors don't have. I quickly found starting from page one of the first chapter of the first book that not only was it filled with self contradictions and ambiguities but that pastorphilip was not able to resolve even a single one of them to my satisfaction. Some didn't have anything to do with theology at all, just the meaning of the words. Such as the difference between the meaning of the deep and the waters in Genesis 1 line 2 since in today's vernacular, the deep is taken to mean the oceans. I also asked him what it meant where it said the earth was formless. Clearly it didn't mean that there was no land because later the bible specifically calls the land "land." This was a real disappointment to me but I accept that at least here, there are no contributors who are definitively qualified to explain what the bible means. Debating its nuances here therefore from my perspective is pointless.
Complain about this comment
Move along folks, there's noting to see here. Its just one more in a long list of examples of how these hypocrites think its OK to "lie for Jesus".
Complain about this comment
I'm sure you are familiar with much of the Creationist material but still, the documentary is well worth a watch.
Indeed I am Paul.
The fact that this docu. comes from an organisation that believes the Earth/Universe is only 6,000 years old,6/24 hr creation, and a global flood would really cause me to doubt that it had any value at other than for propaganda purposes.
If the interviewees claim they didn't catch on that it was a 'Creationist documentry' then it can hardly be too biased. Watch it when it comes out and decide for yourself.
How can it not be "too bised" when Peter Bowler states that most of his interview about Darwin was edited out ? I would imagine that happened with the other unwillng participants in the film as well. Obviously CMI are only showing the material that portays the message that they (CMI) are trying to get across. Personally speaking, after hearing Peter Bowler on Sunday morning, I'd be wondering about all the bits that I didn't see.
Complain about this comment
HenryDrummond
Perhaps the last post that time will afford me. Regarding our discussion on evolved morality....
I would say that conscience tells us that nature has become corrupted because we see things in nature that can shock us, or annoy us - the very things that might cause one to question the existence of a loving God. Things that we know are not the way they should be.
To quote Tennyson:
Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed
We all think about this difficulty. The solution is either that nature (and our human nature included) has fallen below the standard which we know to be good and perfect (as in the Fall into sin). Or else (as in Freudianism) we simply suffer from a restrictive conscience (restricted by societal imposed morality such as Christian values) which imposes on our freedom, and that there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong, good or evil, and so things like the holocaust really shouldn't bother us.
You suggest that we have perhaps evolved this attitude of care for our fellow man as a result of co-existence over the millenia. However I'm sure you can think of individuals who are very skilled at manipulating people to get what they want without returning the favour. The users and abusers tend to be some of the most successful in our cut throat world. I'd say experience would teach one to be more rather than less selfish. Life's experiences tends to harden people rather than soften them as they reach old age.
What would posess someone to lay down his life for his friends, or more amazing still - his enemies? (Check out the film 'To End All Wars' - based on a true story from a Japanese POW camp)
In conclusion - if good arises from experience ingrained throughout the millenia then it is of no more importance to the evolutionist than a tonsil or the appendix. Perhaps caring for one's neighbour is simply a vestigial organ? Or could it be that our conscience is a gift from God, used to convict us and draw us to himself, knowing that we need forgiveness...
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII - "there are no contributors who are definitively qualified to explain what the bible means. Debating its nuances here therefore from my perspective is pointless."
How bizarre that an "expert" is required to debate the meaning of the Bible, yet the accepted theories of Evolution can be fully debated and criticized by effective Layman. The so called "experts" reported in this thread found at Creation Ministries International and affiliates can hardly be regarded as reputable scientists, and indeed aren't. An expert on Caves who openly admits believe in a young earth, that has published only in extremely low impact journals; and a school teacher who has not actually studied and researched Evolutionary Biology.
Perhaps you should reinvoke your disbelief. It is entirely acceptable in this day and age to be a theist, and accept the theory of evolution. If you choose otherwise, then you must accept that the bible is the inerrant word of a god and must live accordingly. For the latter it is clear that as William stated in the interview they have broken the ninth commandment on more than one occasion.
Complain about this comment
Geneboy, I'm glad you've proclaimed yourself as an expert on the bible ready to answer some of the questions I posed to Pastorphilip in the past that he seemed to me to be unable to.
Lets start with the self contradiction in the sequence of the creation of the animals and man. I'll post it again in case you have forgotten it or did not read it the first time.
Genesis 1:24-1:27
" 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created human beings in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."
But;
Genesis 2:15-2:20
"15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals."
So, which came first, the chicken or the man and how do you account for the obvious discrepency since both can't be true? Finally an expert who can answer such a simple question since there are countless others far more difficult to follow.
Complain about this comment
Christians blatantly lying for Jesus.
Now there's a surprise.
Complain about this comment
Paulmcfarland, you are simply trotting out nonsense excuses, not explanations. The toledoth formulation does NOT harmonise these two utterly contradictory accounts in Genesis 1 & 2; they derive from different traditions entirely. The double donkey arose because the author of Matthew was *embellishing* (or, rather, correcting what he thought was an error) the story in Mark, while trying clumsily to weave in his little "fulfilled prophecies". The different accounts of the resurrection are likewise inharmonisable - the simple fact is that the bible is riddled with errors, and is no more a guide to morality than Reservoir Dogs.
As for "immoral nations" - that concept simply drips with racism. The genocide of the Amalekites, for instance, ranks as one of the most hideous stories woven around these "chosen people" - the ludicrous space pixie you pretend to believe in (I don't think there really are *real* theists - just fibbers, projecting their own internal miseries onto a wider reality) comes out of the story as one of the nastiest, most evil gods of the Near East.
But that's just an aside - you don't really believe the bible - you just think you do. The universe is billions of years old. Get over it. You are related to chimps. Get over it. Evolution WORKS. This is no longer up for debate.
Complain about this comment
Im surprised that the UU permitted this film to be shown there. Maybe they didn't know about the deception?
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan, Regarding Gen1/2 the author simply wanted to give an account of the creation week first. After the week finishes the focus then moved to the pinacle of creation - man (which God described as 'very good' in ch1) and how God placed him in the garden, next the text gives the origin of woman, then Adam and Eve's relationship with God.
The alternative would be to place all that information into day 6 and then after day seven return to the temptation in the garden - the way it is written is obviously the better choice - thematic (and also preserving literary symmetry) rather than strictly chronological. The arrangement of the themes stresses the significance of the creation week (which is referred to throughout scripture) as a work of God, with the creation (including man) being passive - man becomes active in the narrative in ch2. There is absolutely nothing to suggest discontinuity or compositions from other traditions other than any preconceptions you impose on the text (eg. that it must have been compiled from older sources or snippets from cereal boxes, rather than originally composed - because it is not an ancient piece, but rather a mish-mash of older myths).
The accounts of the resurrection differ depending on whether the gospel writer used the hours/time from the Jewish day or the Roman day. The reference to '3 days and 3 nights' is a common expression which was used in other literature to simply refer to the period that extended over three days. Therefore Friday evening to Sunday morning could be called '3 days and 3 nights' whilst at the same time Sunday also can be called the 3rd day.
I do believe in God and in Jesus - mankinds only hope. I believe you do too because you keep refering to standards of morality whilst making your judgments, which is logically inconsistent with the relativism of atheism. In short you have an authority problem with God, but through Christ you can know God as a father who loves you. Consider that truth Heliopolitan.
Complain about this comment
"I do believe in God and in Jesus - mankinds only hope. I believe you do too because you keep refering to standards of morality whilst making your judgments, which is logically inconsistent with the relativism of atheism"
What inane twaddle. Please. Your arrogance is beyond belief. The universe doesn't revolve around you, just the opposite, it is supremely indifferent to you. If humans, or even the earth, disappeared tomorrow, it would not make the slightest difference to the universe, as it has managed for most of its existence without the appearance of a bizarre African ape. As for the hijacking of morality by the empty headed for heavenly brownie points, what asinine nonsense. Try invoking an explanation without recourse to am anachronistic supernatural sky fairy, particularly the Abrahamic monster.
Here is an interesting link that demolishes the tedious assertion from religious apologists that morality arose from religion..
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1780,You-cant-be-moral-without-God,RichardDawkinsnet
Complain about this comment
--Phil Bell also denied that his organisation had broken the ninth commandment by "bearing false witness" against Professor Bowler and his colleagues. "Nobody was told any lies," he said.--
Christian ethics are indeed wondrously flexible. Jesus is the ultimate fixer.
Hallelujah!
Complain about this comment
Abernethyt
the "link demolishes the tedious assertion from religious apologists that morality arose from religion.."
Oh goody, I'll have a look tomorrow (or later today I mean) I never seen that done before!
Demolished? Goodness, not even Heliopolitan has done that and his arguments are good, his arguments are very good.
I'm all excited now, can't contain myself, maybe I'll have to stop being a Christian.
Or here, to save me reading the web site you referenced why not put the demolition job up on here in your own words, that's what most of us do.
:-)
Complain about this comment
John Wright asks, 'Where is ANY evidence for creation?'
The request that Christians, or 'creationists' as they are sometimes called, produce evidence for creation is similar to the request which evolutionists faced with the challenge to produce evidence that life originated through a fortuituous chemical synthesis of inanimate elements. No such evidence has been forthcoming, and all the intelligence and resources in the modern laboratory cannot as yet synthesize the simplest form of life. Consequently if an evolutionist is asked how life evolved, rather than admit that he does not know he scornfully responds that the questioner by asking such a question reveals his ignorance of how evolution works, and that the origin of life is not a question for evolutionists to answer. It was not always dismissed thus. Due to early optimism some, like Miller, rushed in, claiming that an answer would soon be found. Haeckel described the incredibly complex cell as a simple gelatinous glob. Obviously(but not to Haeckel) if he had been right, only a 'God did it' would have made any sense at this juncture. Now even such evolutionary zealots as Dawkins are prepared to grasp at aliens and panspermia as possible solutions to the origin of life on this planet; which of course does not answer the question, and is on the path of 'infinite regress'. So 'primitive life', created by means unknown, is the given on which the theory of evolution is built.
Similarly, the request that Christians produce evidence for creation is a red herring. God at work for six days may be as difficult to substantiate as aliens or panspermia. However, if, from positions of faith, we let Christians start from 'perfect complex life',(the Biblical kinds; creatures running, swimming and flying, etc) and let evolutionists begin from 'primitive single cell life' we have a level playing field at kick-off. But the game from there is all uphill for evolutionists struggling to reach the goal of present specialization of life-forms, whereas for Christians it is downhill to generally smaller less complex specimens; a fall through extinction and specialized existence in ever more precarious niches; a development which should have been obvious to Darwin in his pigeon breeding experiments. The presentation of experimental evidence overwhelmingly favours the Christian game in both abundance and clarity of scores; evidence for a Fall abounds. At the other end of the playing field there is no experiment which I can cite which would illustrate the evolution thesis; a game of own-goals by such as Dr Larry Taylor, or Susumu OhNo.
Complain about this comment
pmf
"Heliopolitan, Regarding Gen1/2 the author simply wanted to give an account of the creation week first. After the week finishes the focus then moved to the pinacle of creation - man (which God described as 'very good' in ch1) and how God placed him in the garden, next the text gives the origin of woman, then Adam and Eve's relationship with God."
NO! That is not how the second account, the one in Genesis 2 went. Before god created Eve according to it, he created the animals AFTER he created Adam. And we know this is the second account because the bible explains why he created the animals, to see what Adam would name them. This is in direct contradiction of Genesis 1's account which makes it clear that the animals were created BEFORE Adam was. If you want to interpret, infer, surmise, you can twist the words of the bible to mean anything you want them to say. If you take it literally at its word, then you have to explain the discrepency on its own terms by showing that the the two seemingly different accounts actually do not contradict each other. This would seem an imposibility since by every logical test, the two sequences of events are diametrically opposed to each other. Don't try to fluff some trash excuse off on me. I'm not some nodding dolt in some Sunday morning congregation who wants to believe and will overlook the illogic of it and pretend that it isn't there.
redcarding;
"The presentation of experimental evidence overwhelmingly favours the Christian game.."
Actually exactly the opposite is true. This is surprising since science has only had about 150 years since the catalogueing of the periodic table of the elements and only slightly over 100 years since the discovery of radioactivity while Christianity has had over 2000 years and Judism over 5000 years to refine its explanations. The expectation that humans could synthesize living organism from inert matter in such a short time is unreasonable. What is most surprising is how far it has come in that time. It can synthesize all of the constituent elements found in living organisms, analyze them completely down to the last atom in their structure, knows much about the geological history of the earth going back billions of years, and trace the evolutionary path on both a macroscopic level and now to an increasing degree on a molecular level. It's only a matter of time before it can fit all of the pieces of the puzzle together and ultimately create living organisms from inert matter itself. Perhaps one day it might even create human beings from inert matter. What will Christians say and do when that day arrives? Fortunately for those around now, they may not live to see that day. Then again at the rate progress has been made, who knows.
Complain about this comment
- to MarcusAureliusII
Given that I'm an Evolutionary Biologist by trade, I can only state my opinion on the biblical account of creation. It must be errant, in that it is in itself contradictory and completely askew from the observed data collected over the last century. To state otherwise is to come from a divisive and indeed intellectually egregious standpoint.
Regarding of Chickens and Men though, evolutionary biology can answer that question! A recent study published in PLoS Genetics revealed that chickens are derived primarily from Red Junglefowl, but at some point after domestication were interbred with grey junglefowl. The Junglefowl (Gallus gallus) a member of the Pheasant family has been catalogued many times now, with fossils dating back to the middle Miocene epoch (11-13 million years ago). The domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) is thought from recent evidence to have originated in Vietnam approximately 10,000 years ago. This is contrary to the theory accepted by Darwin that they originated in Asia approximately 5,000 years ago. Isn't science fun when it updates itself with new information? Anyhow I digress, getting back to of men and chucks. So we know that Junglefowl have been picked up as late as 11-13 million years ago, and we are fairly certain that archaic Homo sapiens arose approximately 250,000 to 400,000 years ago so it is clear form the scientific data that fowl came first (wild ones that is), chucks came later.
Does that answer your question?
Complain about this comment
I havent seen the film and cant comment on it.
But I can confirm that I regularly hear and see the BBC launch controversial challenges to people on air that had nothing to do with the reason they were invited on air.
And that is not even the investigate journalism side of what they do.
BBc Spotlight and Panaram specialise in interviewing people using hidden cameras and agendas.
Grow up W&T.
Real men would challenge creationism head on in a stand up fight, not guerilla warfare.
ad hominems are great fun but they dont say much about your ability to debate the actual issues.
There is no obligation on Christians to reject evolution and and mainstream view on earth chronology.
But there are a host of hidden reasons why people would want to reject the bible and genesis as the plain word of God.
most of them involve want to avoid moral challenges.
Complain about this comment
OT, good to have you back old buddy. There is nothing in Genesis that represents a moral challenge, and plenty that is ahistorical nonsense. Let's be quite clear - Genesis is categorically NOT the work of a single author, but was redacted and edited and "fixed" many times in the course of its evolution.
And what Markie said.
Creationism is WRONG, and as a lie, is immoral. Get over it.
Complain about this comment
Welcome back from me too OT. You left a few unanswered questions on the Christianity versus fundamentalism thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/04/christianity_v_fundamentalism.html
And romejellybean added some more comments for you to chew on.
Complain about this comment
Orthodox-tradition - "BBc Spotlight and Panaram specialise in interviewing people using hidden cameras and agendas."
Surely that's to get a scoop so to speak, in this case the scientists in question could hardly be accused of hiding anything or acting duplicitously. Likewise I doubt that investigative journalists are bound to the commandments, in the same fashion that a "Ministry" believing in an inerrant bible would?
If Fathom Media/CMI/creation.com were really confident that they were producing a balanced representation, why be so underhand about acquiring source material? For every scientist that would refuse, surely there are ten in their place. Seems to me that "Real men" would challenge evolution, rather than resorting to Guerilla warfare or wedge strategies!
Unfortunately for you, in this case the group in question do reject the idea that the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with the Bible so the point is moot I guess, but then most Young Earth Creationists do; which is the stance Creation Ministries International take.
Complain about this comment
Geneboy, I think you missed my point completely. My point was that a document that proports to be the absolute truth seems to present two diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive explanations of the same series of events, ironically one right after the other and not in some obscure spot but right at the outset. Those who claim the document to be taken as the literal truth must explain how both accounts can be correct yet not contradict one another. Those who believe in it but say it is not to be taken literally, that it is meant to be interpreted as "symbolic" must explain why any one interpretation, their own for example, is any more valid than anyone elses since by their reasoning the words don't mean what their definitions would have them say.
If you were to present a scientific paper with comparable flaws, you'd probably be laughed out of your profession by your colleagues yet hundreds of millions of people have believed this book over the centuries for one reason or another. My point here is not about the existance of god or the validity of evolution and the invalidity of creationism, that's a separate argument. It's about whether or not this story as it is presented in Genesis is coherent, cohesive, consistent. If it is not, then it is irrational to accept it. It is much like Orwell's concept of doublethink where you believe two contradictory thoughts to be equally valid at the same time (science has its own examples of doublethink, I don't let anyone off the hook for flawed logic.) Religion admits that it is irrational by insisting that we take its version of truth on faith alone, not on evidence. That was my other point above. Those who try to argue religion by using the techniques of observation and logical deduction the scientific method uses, even if theirs is flawed have demonstrated that faith alone is not sufficient for them either in their own beliefs or as sufficient to persuade others in the truth of their beliefs.
Complain about this comment
Markie, was Geneboy arguing that point? I'm not sure that he was... It's pretty clear that biblical "inerrancy" is a fool's errand, and is not a point adopted by anyone with any credibility, or that has ever been convincingly defended by anyone with a cranium more capacious than that of a guppy. For example, Paulmcfarland's attempts above are those that he has read about, not those that he has sat down with, alongside the bible, and checked whether they are credible or mere twaddle. That's a bit sad.
They are right in one thing, though - once one part of the bible has been shown to be wrong, the whole thing starts to fall apart - or at least what it says cannot be taken on faith. But taking *anything* on faith is anathema to the scientific approach, so this is why they hate scientists so much.
Complain about this comment
Helio;
"It's pretty clear that biblical "inerrancy" is a fool's errand, and is not a point adopted by anyone with any credibility, or that has ever been convincingly defended by anyone with a cranium more capacious than that of a guppy."
While these arguments lack credibility to those who demand the rigorous endless process of weighing all observed evidence, constructing logical hypotheses, then testing those hypotheses, further observing, and critical evaluation that is the method of science, they have credibility with many of those who do not think critically or for themselves. When those who are persuasive with such easily challengable arguments are confronted with these self contradictions, their responses can be interestingly inventive. That is why I have pursued exchanges with Pastorphilip. I've wondered what a trained minister could come up with. So far he has proven less then creative in his ability to reconcile the irreconcilable even when restricted entirely to his own turf of biblical accounts. Lately he seems to be avoiding these exchanges or perhaps the opportunities just haven't arisen.
Complain about this comment
Oh I'm definitely not arguing about biblical "inerrancy". In this specific case, I'm referring to Creation Ministries International's stance as seen here http://creation.com/about-us. How can a ministry with this mission statement produce a balanced documentary on the life of Darwin and evolutionary theory.
I think there may also have been a little mix up a few post ago by myself. I was intending to reply to PMF rather than yourself, but by the time I realised I had cut and pasted the wrong name the post comment button had already been clicked. I was a little errant in that case.
Having said that, I do believe that the cognitive processes that make us religious by nature can allow people to in effect hold "Double-think" in their head without going completely mad. If anything reputable Biologists who accept Evolution, that are also Christians must achieve this. Dr Andy Thomson has a fascinating lecture up on Youtube at the moment, which I believe is an incredibly concise synthesis of this.
It can be found here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
Apologies if you lot are already familiar with it, and I am in effect double posting.
Complain about this comment
The last thing I want is another one hour lecture on Darwin 101. I'm not going to sit through it. Is there something new here in 25 words or less? How about in 100 words or less. Hearing yet another of those endless sermons being preached to the choir makes me sorry I learned to sing in the first place or at least didn't restrict my vocal efforts to the shower.
BTW, don't think science isn't without its own doublething. I'm still trying to understand how an electron can have both positive and negative spin numbers at the same time. That's a recent assertion physicists seem adamant about and claim it will lead to building much faster computers. Seems to violate everything I learnd about quantum numbers when I went to school. Ever heard of it? Maybe I should re-activate my membership in AIP.
Complain about this comment
The request that Christians, or 'creationists' as they are sometimes called
Not all Christians are "creationists" and by that I assume you mean young Earth creationists ? By the early 20th century the church had largely made peace with science. Many Christian leaders of that time accepted geological time (e.g.Warfieild and Spurgeon) and biological evolution (Hodge and Lewis). Even William Jennings Bryan was an old Earth creationist, not a YEC. The modern young Earth creationist movement (not Christianity) was largrely revieved in the 1960's by Henry Morris and John C Whitcomb with the publication of the Genesis Flood, a rehash of George McCready Price's earlier "a new geology". Modern young earth creationism also has it's roots in the Seventh Day Adventist movement and Ellen G White.
similar to the request which evolutionists faced with the challenge to produce evidence that life originated through a fortuituous chemical synthesis of inanimate elements. No such evidence has been forthcoming, and all the intelligence and resources in the modern laboratory cannot as yet synthesize the simplest form of life.
No it isn't similar. This is abiogenesis, not evolution. This is something scientists don't know although they have a pretty good idea. In the same way that we don't know what happened before the big bang. We know that the big bang happened because of the clues left behind (the cosmic microwave background radiation for example) but we don't know how. That is not to say that the Earth/Universe is a mere 6,000 old because we don't know these things.
Similarly, the request that Christians produce evidence for creation is a red herring. God at work for six days may be as difficult to substantiate
No it isn't a red herring. Please point me to one peer reviewed science paper as a result of research that shows the Earth/Universe to be 6,000 years old, created in 6/24hr days, and a global flood ? Just one. The early geologists believed this and very quickly found out it wasn't true. More recently, Glenn Morton also believed it but very quickly found out it wasn't true when he wen't to work for the oil industry:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
Complain about this comment
Still waiting for the "new evidence" from pastorphilip buy the way.
Complain about this comment
Seems to violate everything I learnd about quantum numbers when I went to school. Ever heard of it? Maybe I should re-activate my membership in AIP.
Still doesn't mean the Earth/Universe are 6,000 years old Marcus.
Complain about this comment
pJh
"Similarly, the request that Christians produce evidence for creation is a red herring. God at work for six days may be as difficult to substantiate"
That was another problem with Genesis, the impossibility of judging the time span of the first three days.
Genesis 1:13-1:16;
"13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."
Since there was no sun for the first three days and since the term day is defined by a timespan of repetition of the sun appearing in the same place in the sky from one day to the next such as from sun-up to sun-up, there is no rational explanation of how the first three days occurred or were measured. The more you look at the stories in the bible, the more they fall apart, not merely from contradictory scientific evidence but by the weight of its own incoherence. It constantly raises questions that defy any logical explanation even in everyday non scientific terms.
"Still doesn't mean the Earth/Universe are 6,000 years old Marcus."
???? where did you ever get the idea that I thought it was. I myself am older than 6000 years. How do you think I got to be this smart? If you've read my postings, you know I've been an atheist all of my life. I've never entertained the possibility that god exists. I never found any reason to.
Complain about this comment
where did you ever get the idea that I thought it was.
Just surmising Marcus.
YECs frequently highlight anomalies in science (such as the one you've just mentioned) that challenge current scientific thinking, in order to justify a young earth and 6/24hr creation.
Complain about this comment
Andromeda galaxy. Look up on a dark night and you might see it if you know where to look.
2 million light years away. We *know* this. We can *see* stars in it. We can see stars orbiting other stars. We can see from this that the speed of light has not changed over the last 2 million years (because that would shift the spectra and shift the orbits, and it hasn't) and we can see that one end of this enormous galaxy is performing the same way as the other end.
There is only one possible explanation for this - the Andromeda Galaxy has been there for at least 2 million years. What we see happening NOW (and these are *events*, not just "light in transit") in the Andromeda Galaxy is a picture of events that were happening 2 million years ago.
The same applies to other galaxies even further away.
This is PROOF that the universe is millions (and billions) of years old. No possible come-back on that. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is disproven. Categorically. Deal with it, chappies.
Complain about this comment
It'll not convince them I'm afraid Helio. This is what you are up against:
http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics
Some pretty serious technical gobbledegook which they lap up, hook line and sinker, despite the fact that absolutely none of it is peer reviewed science. Which is why it doesn't appear in any school or university textbook but instead, exclusively on a YEC website.
Complain about this comment
Don't confuse us with the facts, our minds are made up.
pJh
"YECs frequently highlight anomalies in science (such as the one you've just mentioned) that challenge current scientific thinking, in order to justify a young earth and 6/24hr creation."
Just because Religion has NO right answers, that doesn't mean that everything people who call themselves scientists and agree to among themselves for the moment is something I will swallow hook, line, and sinker without question. They make their share of mistakes too including some very big one. And sometimes they won't even admit it was a mistake after they've been proven wrong. They can also be very arrogant. But there is no doubt about evolution. It makes complete sense, the evidence is sufficient, there are no other plausible explanations. Even if you occasionally find some part of it in error, you've merely put a tiny bullet hole through what is by now a huge tapestry. The overall picture doesn't change. The so called creationists have nothing.
BTW, I'm not saying the physicists who say that an electron can have both +1/2 and -1/2 quantum spin numbers at the same time are necessarily wrong, it's that I just don't see how, especially in light of what I was taught about quantum mechanics many many years ago. Perhaps one day they'll have an explanation for it that is not so convoluted that even I will be able to understand it. That's happened before too.
Complain about this comment
Helio: "This is PROOF that the universe is millions (and billions) of years old. No possible come-back on that. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is disproven. Categorically. Deal with it, chappies.'
There is a comeback. But as it involves Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Israeli Physicist Carmeli's "New Physics" and black matter, it is beyond my ability to summarize here.
However Dr John Hartnett, who is a research physicist at the University of Western Australia in Perth, has written a book called "Starlight, Time & the New Physics", which "deals with it" quite comprehensively.
An interesting tit-bit from the book is that there is no 'red-shift' phenomena associated with stars that are less than 6000 light-years from earth implying that the stars beyond that are being seen (today) in the process of being created. And no, it's not a fairy tale...
Also Carmeli's physics do indeed show that the earth COULD be very close to the centre of the universe. Which is why we only see 'red-shifted' stars travelling away from us...
The Psalms tell us that God 'stretched out' the heavens like stretching out a massive piece of fabric. Which is exactly what astronomers & astro-physicists tell us today - that the universe is expanding away from us. They even speak of the "fabric of the universe". How interesting...
BTW, gravitational time dilation (a consequence of Einstein's Theory of Special relativity) can be used to postulate that 'clocks' at the edge of an expanding universe are 'ticking over' millions of times faster than 'clocks' on earth. Thus providing a mechanism that could allow us to see 'distant' starlight that has been recently created. Don't ask me to explain it as I barely comprehend it - just as I barely comprehend photo-synthesis, cellular complexity and women. :-)
Complain about this comment
Korotiotio - Psalm 104:2 "He stretches out the Heavens like a tent."
With your 6000 thousand year stance you must be a YEC/ID supporter. How in the name of all that is good and holy can the stars be described as stretched out like a tent. Remember it has to be an inerrant teaching, no room for interpretation; if you are taking the literal 6 day, 6 thousand year approach you must be consistant.
How many giant ball shaped tents have you been in, suspended in the free space within? Unless of course there is some theory at the moment of a Yurt shaped universe, is there? If we are talking about fabric, are there tent poles? or Guy ropes and pegs? Is so where are they?
Find Gods tent pegs and you are onto a winner. I imagine he hammered 3 into the corners and improvised the missing one with a nearby stick.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, I thought korotiotios post on the other thread just there was bad, but post 94 in this thread takes the cake. Mixing rather ambitious physics with bible passages from Psalms, sigh. A mere statement like
"Also Carmeli's physics do indeed show that the earth COULD be very close to the centre of the universe."
is enough to know he's an ignorant science jargon blurter. korotiotio, there is no single point that can be said to be the centre of the universe. From every galaxy, you see other galaxies speeding away from you, one point would be no more valid than another as a choice to say 'Right there is the centre'. Having learned that your christianity makes you an anti-science creationist nutcase, I fully expect you to ignore anything presented to wise you up. But I'll waste some time anyway explaining it a bit further through a simple analogy.
The analogy is to imagine the universe being on the surface of a balloon. Take a half-inflated balloon and use a marker to mark a number of points (say that those are the galaxies) on its surface. Then inflate the balloon further. All points increase in distance from the other points. But can you say which particular point is the centre? No. If you look at one point, you'd see all others moving away. You might think that one is the centre. But if you had picked another point, you'd see the same thing happening. Every other point is just a valid as a choice for being the centre. I.e. you can't say 'There is THE centre'.
So that then puts your blabla about the earth being near the centre of the universe, relativity effects at the edge of the universe etc into perspective. It's hogwash from an ignorant creationist who is desperate to see science confirm his faith, when it does just the opposite.
Complain about this comment
Korotiotio, you have a Problem. Part of that problem is that despite a little non-copernican moment a few months ago, where the *Milky Way* (and our local galaxies, including Andromeda Galaxy M31) was postulated as *possibly* sitting within a VAST cosmic void (it was in SciAm recently - I forget the issue), that hypothesis has been roundly squashed by the data, and has failed to garner any support at all.
However, it does not help you - you CANNOT get the local group any younger than several million years by that method. So you still lose. Badly.
Then there is time dilation. The problem with this notion is that if you shift either time or the speed of light, you cannot do that (even gods cannot do that) without distorting the fabric of the spacetime in which the galaxy sits, so you would see the effects in perturbations of galactic motion, stars' orbits, their spectra, the periods of cepheid variables, the characteristics of supernovae - all these in very precise computable terms.
What you have said in post 94 is utter nonsense (PROVABLY so, I'm afraid - sorry!) - it *cannot* and *does not* rescue a universe that is only several thousand years old. I'll reiterate - even the stars that we can see (including groups such M31 and the magellanic clouds, which are our cosmic next-door neighbours, so to speak) completely disprove the idea of a recent creation. There are of course many other facts that disprove such a silly notion. You've cited Carmeli and Hartnett - their ideas don't even work. Anyone with a basic notion of astronomy can work this out.
Look, here is the deal. Genesis is NOT history. It is not even metaphor. What it is is CONTEXT. It is the background creation and origins mythology which informed the Hebrew worldview. All cultures have these, and many cultures have several. Indeed, Genesis has several - there are different creation traditions (the redactor simply put both in, one after the other - there was no need for harmonisation; he wasn't writing history - just a vaguely chronological compendium of stories), different flood traditions, just as the early Christian communities each had their own tradition and their own "gospel" - it was only when they were all put together and silly people decided that they had to be literally true that the glaring contradictions appeared, and by then it was too late to fix them (although some tried).
So, to repeat, just to drum it in: NOT history, NOT metaphor, but CONTEXT. Perhaps this might lead you to a deeper and more fulfilling understanding of the bible *and* science, but you can throw your creationist books in the trash. Keep your bible though. Ancient texts are interesting in their own right.
Complain about this comment
Helio, given that I clearly have a sub-basic notion of astronomy perhaps you might like to enlighten us all on the work of Harnett & Carmeli and why it is their ideas don't work. Specifics would be nice.
Like I said in my previous post I wasn't going to attempt to summarize their work as I could not possibly do justice to it.
But you do seem to know, so please... I'm sure the respective authors are very keen to be corrected.
Complain about this comment
Hello korotiotio,
Helio doesn't need my help answering for him, but I think I would probably say the same as him here: the burden of work is yours. I can give more detailed info on why your ideas about 'the earth near the centre of the universe' are rubbish. Helio can explain bits of astronomy. If you want to put across a radically different idea, then it's up to you to show something in favour of your idea first. Until then, there is nothing to refute. If you say you can't do it, then that is fine too, no obligation whatsoever. But then don't expect your post to carry any weight.
The 'shifting the burden of work' approach is classic creationist tactic. Don't do any work yourself ever, expect to have it right until others prove you wrong. It doesn't work that way in science. And it's rather too old an approach for some of us here to fall for it:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/tactics.htm
Complain about this comment
BTW, gravitational time dilation (a consequence of Einstein's Theory of Special relativity) can be used to postulate that 'clocks' at the edge of an expanding universe are 'ticking over' millions of times faster than 'clocks' on earth. Thus providing a mechanism that could allow us to see 'distant' starlight that has been recently created. Don't ask me to explain it as I barely comprehend it - just as I barely comprehend photo-synthesis, cellular complexity and women. :-)
No.
Well, at least not to the factors that they propose. Add to the fact that Russell Humphreys has not one shred of evidence to back up his claims and you'll realise why astro-physicists don't take the idea even remotely seriously. There's an excellent series of videos on youtube by youtuber cdk007 on this very subject entitled "why YECs must deny gravity" dealing with their dilema. I'd urge you to have a look. You'll find them very entertaining if nothing else Marcus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk&feature=related
Complain about this comment
An interesting tit-bit from the book is that there is no 'red-shift' phenomena associated with stars that are less than 6000 light-years from earth implying that the stars beyond that are being seen (today) in the process of being created. And no, it's not a fairy tale...
Nonsense. Stars 6,000 light years distant lie within our own galaxy. Of course they wouldn't be redshifted (or at least would have a very small red or blue shift). In fact, we can determaine the discances to astronomical objects 6,000 light years or less by using a method known as parralex.
Also Carmeli's physics do indeed show that the earth COULD be very close to the centre of the universe. Which is why we only see 'red-shifted' stars travelling away from us...
This is nonsense. It's quite clear you have very little understanding of even basic cosmology korotiotio. Why not have a go at an OU course rather than listining to a charlaton such as John Hartnett (who is neither a cosmologist or astro physicist.
So, some basic cosmology. Within our own galaxy we see stars that exhibit the dopler effect i.e. we can depermain if the are moving towards or away from us. They will be either red shifted or blue shifted, spectroscopy wise. This is because the stars within our galaxy are rotating around a centre (possibly a supermassive black hole).
We do not measure cosmological redshift by looking at stars moving away from us. Using spectroscopy we can determain the redshift of all the galaxies we observe. Most are red shifted. Some galaxies within the local group , Andromeda for example, are blue shifted i.e.Andromeda is moving towards us and at some time in the future will merge with the Milky Way. The notion that the Earth is the centre of the expansion is an optical illusion and is well understood by cosmologists.
As I say, the OU is a good place to start. They do a series of short 10 week courses now and you'd probably find these benificial.
Complain about this comment
K, what would you like to know? As you admit, you're not even at entry level in science, so what on earth makes you think that these chaps are even in the ball park? On what basis do you accept their arguments, rather than those of scientists?? You need to address this in your head - it is very important. I would hate to be facing god on Judgement Day, and find out that by arguing for creationism I was in fact building a heinous heresy! Even from the point of view of your own salvation, you need to approach this with a bit more common sense and rigour. OK, the punishment meted out to Ken Ham and Russell Humphreys will be even greater, but the first duty of a Christian is supposed to be to the Truth.
I've already given you some information that should allow you to check this out - Andromeda galaxy and Magellanic clouds - nothing too complex there, but your job is to show how the events that we see happening in the sky (these are EVENTS, not simply "light") can have taken place within the last 6000 years, while leaving a flat trace in terms of the planetary orbits and the spectra of the light that we observe coming from them.
The problem is that you can't keep these variables flat, whether you adjust the speed of light, the gravitational constant, alpha - ANYTHING. Perhaps after reading this you will understand why these people are not even at the game. There is a Reason for this, and it is not complicated. There is a solution to the problem:
Universe is OLD. Get used to it. If that means that you ditch a naive literal interpretation of Genesis 1, as the vast majority of biblical scholars and theologians did hundreds of years ago, you will be the better for it. Trust me. And if you look into evolutionary biology, you will find one of the most exciting and vibrant areas of science - a truly beautiful place. "There is grandeur in this view of life", as old Charlie D said.
Truth beats fiction every time.
Complain about this comment
It's been over 40 years since I used the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations to solve problems in relativistic physics but here goes;
"BTW, gravitational time dilation (a consequence of Einstein's Theory of Special relativity) can be used to postulate that 'clocks' at the edge of an expanding universe are 'ticking over' millions of times faster than 'clocks' on earth. Thus providing a mechanism that could allow us to see 'distant' starlight that has been recently created. Don't ask me to explain it as I barely comprehend it"
"An interesting tit-bit from the book is that there is no 'red-shift' phenomena associated with stars that are less than 6000 light-years from earth implying that the stars beyond that are being seen (today) in the process of being created. And no, it's not a fairy tale..."
Dead wrong conclusion. The clocks on distant galaxies may actually be moving much faster than ours since our relative velocity to them is near the speed of light but the light they emit exists in our reference frame. One aspect of the theory of relativity is that the speed of light is constant no matter where or how it is measured, no matter how fast or slowly you are traveling with respect to the source. Therefore if we are billions of light years away from the source in our reference frame, it has taken billions of years for that light to reach us. No ifs, ands, or buts. It is not surprising that the relative velocity of nearby stars is low compared to ours since we were sent on similar trajectories from the same place at the same time at the instant of the explosion.
"Also Carmeli's physics do indeed show that the earth COULD be very close to the centre of the universe. Which is why we only see 'red-shifted' stars travelling away from us..."
Since the universe is postulated to have exploded from a single point 12 1/2 billion years ago, in general, objects are moving away from each other, but locally it is possible that objects near each other are moving closer to each other one relative to another. This does not negate the theory of an exploding universe. Some stars and galaxies do exhibit a blue dopplar shift with respect to the earth. It may be possible to extrapolate backwards relative to where the current positions of the galaxies are and what their velocities are where the center of the explosion took place but we are nowhere near it now. And fortunately for us, we are nowhere near the center of our own galaxy either but 2/3 of the distance from the center to the edge on one of its spiral arms, that is about 35,000 light years from the center. If we were a lot closer to the center, I speculate that radiation levels might be too high to allow life as we know it to exist. Our sun is an average star. There are much larger, hotter, brighter, as well as smaller, cooler and dimmer stars.
In a recent publication, astronomers now believe that our Milky Way galaxy contains about as many stars and is about the same size as M31 that is about one trillion stars. It was previously thought to contain about 400 billion. I don't have any recent data if there was a change it its estimated size. It was believed to be about 100,000 light years across and 10,000 light years thick. M31 is about 2 million light years away or twenty diameters distant. The increased estimate of the mass of our galaxy is said to also increase the likelihood of eventual collisions with other large bodies such as M31. This is due to the increased estimate of its gravitational attraction. Fortunately this will happen long after we are all dead and our earth no longer exists billions of years from now.
YECs are as badly out of their league in areas of cosmology and astronomy as they are in areas of biological science. To those who are actually in the field, all they can do is make fools of themselves. To their congregations, they have them flimflammed already anyway so what difference does it make what they say to them. All they care about is a perpetual flow of money in the collection plate.
Complain about this comment
Some stars
These would be stars within our own galaxy. I assume you realise this Marcus ?
and galaxies
or stars within the Andromeda galaxy. However, in general we don't measure the redshift (which I assume you know what the term means) of stars in order to look at the expanding Universe. Hubble was looking at the spectra of galaxies, not stars, and he found that these were mostly all shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Hence the conclusion that the universe is expending etc. etc.
Complain about this comment
pJh
"These would be stars within our own galaxy. I assume you realise this Marcus?"
For those who do not know what this all means, I'll give a brief explanation. Most of the universe is made up of hydrogen. When light from a star is viewed through a spectrascope, each element exhibits a series of lines related to the frequency of oscillation of the atoms of that element. Each element has its own characteristic lines called absorption spectra. This can be performed in a laboratory using a bunsen burner or propane torch that heats the element so that it gives off light. Often a platinum wire is used to hold solid elements or liquids as they are heated to incandescence. I built a spectroscope as part of a science fair project when I was in the fourth grade (about 10 years old) from instructions in a science magazine and parts bought from a supply house. It consists of lenses, prisms, and diffraction gratings that separate light out into its different constituent parts just like a rainbow. Those in use today are far more sophisticated using electronic light amplifiers but work on the same basic principles.
When starlight is viewed through a spectrascope connected to a telescope, it also gives characteristic lines depending on the elements in the star, mostly hydrogen. But the frequencies of the light in the lines seen may be different from those seen for hydrogen in a laboratory. This is because of something called a Doppler shift named after the discoverer of the phenomenon, Christian Doppler. An analogy which explains it can be experienced with sound of a moving car blowing its horn or train traveling down a track while blowing its whistle. As it approaches you, its pitch increases. When it passes you and recedes into the distance its pitch decreases. The same thing happens with light. The equation is simple, frequency times wavelength equals velocity, in this case the velocity of light. As I posted above, light's velocity (in a vacuum) is constant, 186,282 miles per second. Therefore as the frequency changes in one direction, the wavelenght changes in the opposite direction. That means if a star is approaching you, the frequencies from hydrogen increase and it is said they become bluer, shifting towards the blue end of the visible light spectrum. If it is moving away, they decrease making them appear redder for the same reason. The faster they are moving towards or away from you, the greater the doppler frequency shift. The fact that galaxies for the most part give light which shifts to the red end of the spectrum indicates that they are moving away from earth, some at very high velocity approaching a significant fraction of the speed of light. Individual stars within other galaxies are probably too faint and too difficult to segregate to measure apart from the galaxy as a whole but it is clear that they move along with their galaxies. Only stars in our own Milky Way are bright enough and resolvable enough to be measured individually. The fact that on the whole that galaxies are moving away from earth and from each other leads to the conclusion that they originated from a single point, the origin of the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. (I have my own theory but no proof, just a guess.)
Anyway, that's a thumbnail explanation of what the red shift means and why we think the universe is expanding.
Complain about this comment
Hi Marcus,
"It may be possible to extrapolate backwards relative to where the current positions of the galaxies are and what their velocities are where the center of the explosion took place"
Are you sure of that? I suspect you may be extrapolating the Newtonian picture a bit too far here? For an exploding hand grenade it would work as you describe. But I thought that it didn't work that way in relativity. Using the 'universe on balloon surfsce' analogy again, you could say that the centre of the balloon is where all points move away from. But the universe is only on the balloon surface, the point you would designate as the centre of the universe isn't in the universe.
But it's not my field of expertise. If you want to grow my knowledge in this area by telling me why I'm wrong and how it does really work then you're more than welcome to.
Complain about this comment
Good explanation Marcus.
Complain about this comment
PK
Until you get to about nine tenths of the speed of light, Newtonian mechanics is still a pretty good model. Even those galaxies moving away from each other fastest I think are not quite that fast, maybe 0.75C. The "surface of the balloon" is the fartherst galaxies we can see from earth, the so called horizon. We don't know what lies beyond. about 90% to 95% of the matter in the universe physicists compute to exist (presumably from inertia of mass of the universe) can't be accounted for. Is it over that horizon or somewhere else? Nobody knows. BTW, this is not my area of expertise, just an occasional hobby. I joined AIP for entirely different reasons having nothing to do with astronomy or cosmology. I was much more interested in it when I was very young.
The theories physicists advance to explain the universe to each other have become increasingly more convoluted and perplexing. String theory now seems to be falling out of favor to be replaced by membrane theory. And here I could hardly understand string theory. They seem to talk a jargon all their own. I feel like a Newtonian creature trapped in an Einsteinian universe I can't understand. But then I'm only three dimensional (I think) so give me a break :-)
Complain about this comment
The "surface of the balloon"
That's the analogy cosmologists draw to explain the fact that all the galaxies would appear to be moving away from us with respect to the Earth, thus giving us the illusion that we are the centre.
And here I could hardly understand string theory. They seem to talk a jargon all their own.
Gobbledegook to me as well Marcus. I do know they propose 11 dimensions and multiverses and that when two of these alternative universes colide the result is the big bang and a new Universe. Probably more philosophy than science. Still, you never know.
Complain about this comment
The Darwinists have proven they'll sink to any level in order to keep their horse 'n' buggy-era pseudoscience alive, and that includes robbing people of their livelihood (see last year's blockbuster Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). The only way to combat such trash is to give them ample doses of their own medicine. Assuming the makers of the new documentary on racist Charles Darwin did lie about their motives, not only am I not ashamed, I would be proud. Proud that my fellow anti-Darwinists are finally standing up to the lies and deceit of their science-hijacking enemies.
As for Dawkins, he's a coward with an agenda who wont debate anyone of significance. He's also been caught in too many lies, including completely changing his story regarding the "mutations that add information" question. Anyone who takes such a dishonest, anti-scientific blowhard serious shan't be taken serious by me.
Complain about this comment
By the way Marcus, I successfully completed OU course S281, asrtronomy and planetary science. Quite a bit of basic cosmology in the course, but it's all changed, even in the last 12 uears, hence my interest in astronomy. I worked in chemistry for over thirty years although I'm retired now (early fifties).
The OU is excellent and highly recommended
Complain about this comment
The Darwinists have proven they'll sink to any level in order to keep their horse 'n' buggy-era pseudoscience alive,
Plenty of Christians are "Darwinists" as you like to call them, i.e. they accept mainstream science.
see last year's blockbuster Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Voted one of the biggest turkeys of all time as far as films go and a complete flop at the box office.
Proud that my fellow anti-Darwinists are finally standing up to the lies and deceit of their science-hijacking enemies.
And what lies and deceit are these then ? Please give a few examples.
Complain about this comment
Darwinian evolution is only "mainstream science" because it doubles as an atheistic religion. They can't give it up without having their entire world view come to a crashing halt. As lazy-eyed slimebucket Richard Dawkins said: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Give up Darwinian evolution, give up your intellectual fulfillment. How many of the chance-worshiping atheists who have hijacked science are willing to give that up?
Complain about this comment
Darwinian evolution is only "mainstream science" because it doubles as an atheistic religion.
How is mainstream science Atheistic ? Certainly in my experience with science, whether it be at school or university level, Atheism was never. There are many, many Christians working in science, contributing to science who do not accept the lies/distortions/missrepresentations of science by the YECs in whart is not only outdated science (i.e. the science of 2000 years ago) but also outdated Christianity.
You still haven't provided me with examples of main stream science's lies and decet that you've mentioned.
Still, since pastorphilip hasn't told me what the "new evidence" is I'll not hold my breath.
Complain about this comment
I've just discovered this blog, and it's an excellent platform for debate and discussion. I've a question for my fellow humanists in Ireland, though. You seem to be a little obsessed with only one issue - evolution. It's important, for sure, and I'm always up for defending Darwin against anti-scientific challenges, but from what I can tell Northern Ireland is facing a greater danger right now from racism and homophobia. I've been on another thread debating with the Northern Ireland leader of Evangelical Alliance, whose organisation has a report recommending that pro-gay defenders should be disciplined in churches, and who defend conversion therapies for gays. This is pretty disgraceful stuff, and it's one of those reputations Northern Ireland could do without. Personally, I see no moral difference between racism and homophobia. Whether someone is being abused because of their ethnicity, their sexuality, or their gender, we need to stand up against those in our societies who are peddling discrimination in the name of religion. I say all this to encourage Northern Ireland humanists to take a stand against racism and homophobia. On this blog and elsewhere, please write about it, debate it, and show that you are not a one-trick pony obsessed with Darwinism. End of anti-sermon.
Complain about this comment
Oops, should've stuck to mentioning the book and refrained from commenting. My mistake.
Like I said from the beginning I'm no expert in this field, but I did find it an interesting read and thought others might also. It hasn't changed or reinforced what I believe, but it is fascinating to find out how others are grappling with the mysteries and conundrums that the physical universe present us with.
However, it would be nice to see someone actually tackling the thesis presented in the book, rather than attacking what they think it says. I see no evidence here that anyone has actually read "Starlight, Time & the New Physics" by John Hartnett, but I could be wrong.
BTW, I forgot to mention that a starting assumption for the cosmology presented in the book requires a 'bounded' universe (like a lot of science it starts with assumptions). They don't claim that the universe IS bounded, but demonstrate how the theory works based on that assumption. And if my understanding is correct, no one has been able to determine conclusively whether the universe is bounded or not.
On another note, I'm intrigued... Why do you care???
If the opinions of YEC's are so inconsequential and stupid, why does the supposed lie of a creationist about a film on Darwin elicit such a rabid, antagonistic response? By your own standard you have no ABSOLUTE basis for determining morality or ethics, so what do you care if someone else breaks theirs. What do you care that they set up little institutions intent on attracting a "perpetual flow of money in the collection plate" from witless morons? Why don't you just ignore our pathetic little mutterings and get on with life? Truth is relative, so move on... Goodness knows I'm wasting too much time with this. If only it paid the bills!
I mean really, if our belief in a creator God is just some weird evolutionary side-track that is headed for a dead end, why not let natural selection take it's course and let us evolve ourselves to oblivion. You'll obviously be much happier!
Perhaps however, as much as you dearly wish that was reality, it isn't reality at all.
LOL!
Complain about this comment
Korotiotio - "If the opinions of YEC's are so inconsequential and stupid, why does the supposed lie of a creationist about a film on Darwin elicit such a rabid, antagonistic response?"
Perhaps because most of us view it as intellectual regression, attempting to undo one hundred and fifty years of tried and tested research and philosophy?
Perhaps because of the discovery of the Wedge Document in 1999?
Perhaps because they are representing themselves and others dishonestly?
Perhaps because they are openly disseminating disinformation that no rational minded individual, who is versed and critical of the current debates in science takes even remotely seriously.
Perhaps because they don't actually conduct any research of their own; but rather are openly critical of others, invoking nonsense no sequitur arguments based on a document deemed to be the inerrant teachings of a plainly schizophrenic god?
The reason I choose to respond to these things is not out of hatred or malice, but rather alarm. As an Evolutionary Biologist I feel compelled to intervene, I imagine much in the same way that a Vet would tend to a sick animal or a mechanic to a broken engine. Much of my life has been devoted to the pursuit of knowledge in this field, and it pains me to see the knowledge I have worked so hard to acquire be so flippantly and erroneously bandied about by apparent laymen and agenda driven "experts". Not only that but these individuals apparently are experts in multiple fields of scientific endeavour from Astrophysics to Zoology, a stance that no sane scientist would ever attempt to portray themselves as.
This sudden shift in the last few years I find quite alarming too. The apparent strategy now is for young earth creationists to represent themselves as "Champions of the People" and the watchmen of science. Rather than trying to push their clearly error laden dogma they are adopting the much more subversive strategy of undermining solid research, in the eyes of the people they come in contact with. So convincing is the rhetoric (and it's not really surprising given the close association with organised religion) that I frequently hear theistic layman regurgitating verbatim what can only be described as jargon ridden intellectual garbage quite akin to the invented science heard on Star trek The next generation. You can even see in the writing, and hear in the voice that it is scripted and clearly not derived from critical thought but rather rote learning like lines on a chalkboard. I could probably quote Imsmarterthanyou above as saying "mutations that add information" and be fully confident in stating that he/she doesn't understand genetics above the secondary school level (if even), although do correct me if Im wrong on that one.
Finally the main reason why I insist on responding to this drivel, because someone has too and it may as well be a person fully equipped to tackle it head on.
Complain about this comment
ISTY
Isn't it a shame we can't go back to the time when the earth was flat, was the center of the universe, and the sun, planets, and stars all revolved around it proving that man was god's purpose in creating the universe? Damned that Galileo guy. Should have put him to the rack. BTW, in case you forgot....Catholics ruled all of Christendom in the good old days.
Complain about this comment
"Assuming the makers of the new documentary on racist Charles Darwin did lie about their motives, not only am I not ashamed, I would be proud."
Oh, the wonders of christian morality.
Complain about this comment
Hello BeagleVoyager, post 115
When I lived in Northern Ireland, I was a member of the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland. Of the two points of attention for humanists you mention, racism and homophobia, speaking out against homophobia was certainly prominently on the agenda. To the point where some said the focus was too much focused on that single issue. Racism was less visible than homophobia when I was in NI. But I would expect that to garner much more attention now. Northern Ireland humanists taking a stance against creationism may be very visible (which I think is excellent) but it's far from being the only thing they have to say.
Complain about this comment
korotiotio,
"However, it would be nice to see someone actually tackling the thesis presented in the book, rather than attacking what they think it says. I see no evidence here that anyone has actually read "Starlight, Time & the New Physics" by John Hartnett, but I could be wrong."
As said in previous posts, if you want to put forward and discuss the case in that book, then outline the points it makes. You shouldn't expect everyone here to go buy the book and read it. You bring it up, you present the case. See point 3 of the cretinist tactics summary:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/tactics.htm
Complain about this comment
I've a friend in the NI Humanists who tells me they have members who opposed the organisation taking part in gay pride because "homosexuality is unnatural"!! Humanist homophobia exists!
Complain about this comment
Hello jovialPTL,
"I've a friend in the NI Humanists who tells me they have members who opposed the organisation taking part in gay pride because "homosexuality is unnatural""
The only argument I heard during the meeting where participation in the gay pride parade was discussed, was whether members should participate individually or under the banner of Humani.
Which doesn't mean I can say 100% sure that humanist homophobia doesn't exist. Maybe some does.
Complain about this comment
K, bounded or unbounded, it makes no difference to the central issue. Right now WE have no evidence that YOU have read the book, and it is up to YOU to put forward arguments as to why you think it can get around the very serious problem (for you) of us being able to RIGHT NOW see events that happened millions and billions of years ago.
I can't be expected to read every piece of dribble that some nutcase puts out; if you want to convince us that there is something there, YOU need to put forward the argument.
As for "absolute morality" - you clearly have never even looked into morality at all. People base their morality on the effects that their actions will have on others. "Morality" has evolved as a way of helping us make decisions that result in a desirable outcome - that is true for theistic morality as well as atheistic. Theistic morality, however, is a mess, because it puts the moral stamp on the action, not the motives or the outcome. That is a very very philosophically dumb thing to do, as was worked out at the time of the ancient greeks. Please don't embarrass yourself further on the morality question.
ISTY, you are essentially saying that there are only 9 commandments. That whole bearing false witness thing, We knew that anyway. Fundamentalist Christian morality really is a pile of muck, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan, you said:
'As for "absolute morality" - you clearly have never even looked into morality at all.'
Could you please give a situation it is morally right to rape a young girl?
Complain about this comment
I heard the programme on Sunday on the Voyage that shook the world. I would just like to say that if reporters go under cover to obtain information that the public needs to know then it is called 'Good investigative journalism' but if Creationists do it then they are deceivers and immoral.
It seems that the 'Scientists'?? and 'Evolutionists'!! in this blog are trying to stifle any outlet for an alternative that involves God. They seem to be following 'by rote' the principle that it doesn't matter what answer scientific investigation comes up with as long as it isn't God.
Experiments are one way of obtaining information and I know from over 40 years experience that God answers prayer and changes lives. But this cannot be put in a test tube. And that is why it is called 'Faith'.
Complain about this comment
Halitedome,
You make my point. You are in a position where you can rape a young girl. You have a choice - commit the rape, or do not commit the rape.
Where does morality come in here? It is relevant in helping you make your decision. Are you seriously suggesting that you would rape a young girl, but for the fact that you imagine that it is against the wishes of some deity or other? What if in the bible there *are* clear instances of divinely sanctioned rape (there are)? Does that help you out of the quandary?
So what do you base your decision on, if not divine sanction? I would suggest (I would *hope*!) that you would choose not to rape the young girl. But I would be scared stiff if the only reason you could come up with to NOT do it was your religion!
Whereas, as an atheist and a humanist, I realise that if I am in a position to act in such a way as it violates the trust that another person should reasonably place in me, it is THAT that informs my morality.
And you base your decisions on precisely the same thing, even if you don't realise it. Morality and ethics are MORE justifiable under a purely humanistic system than a theistic system, as some of the blatantly lying theists on this thread demonstrate very nicely.
Complain about this comment
Use a blog comment to do justice to a cosmological theory on distant starlight in a young universe that takes a whole book to explain? That's a reasonable request - not!
But I will offer a quote from a book I can assure you I have read. It comes from a book called Romans.
Chapter 1 verses 20-22:
"For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."
A contemporary observation from an ancient source...
For those genuine seekers of truth who happen to pass by here, I sincerely trust you find what you are looking for. For I fear it is not to be found in a futile philosophy that worships science as its god.
Amen and out of here...
Complain about this comment
Marcus and Helio:
Gen1/2 do not conflict. 2:19 the word usually translated 'formed' or 'made' (lexifcal pronounced: yaw-tsar') is in past tense - if in whatever version you have it seems to suggest that God made the animals after what came previously then check your footnotes - it might have an alternative translation. The tense signifies that God 'had' made the animals previously. The problem is only in the English translation and not the Hebrew text - 'God made' is vague - hence 'God had made' in some transtlations.
Heliopolitan, PeterKlaver, MarcusAureliusII and others:
Regarding starlight and time. Due to the fact that John Hartnett is an apostate to your atheist orthodox faith I have included a link that you should be allowed to read....
http://knol.google.com/k/spiros-kakos/earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe/2jszrulazj6wq/39#
In summary: Earth-centrism is the most scientific cosmological model... denying that stems from your philosophical bias against the special significance man would have as created by God. Hawking refers to this bias against Earth-centrism as "modesty" (Cosmology: Methodological Debates in the 1930s and 1940s [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]). However having such a bias against the plain observation and clearest evidence leads to the necessary fabrication of fairy-tale elements such as dark energy and dark matter (for which complete blind faith is required).
Ellis said: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations, [...] For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. [...] You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.
(George F. R. Ellis, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, Bantam Dell Publishing Group, 1988.)
Marcus, Helio etc you criticise faith, yet belief in dark matter and dark energy requires blind faith. Your atheistic cosmological model is a glaring example of how your bias against special creation requires you to construct ridiculous explanations without an ounce of evidence rather than accept the straight-forward explanation. So applying Occam's razor the burden of proof lays with you...
You believe what you believe not because of evidence but because of your bias against God your creator. One day you will be subject to him in judgment. But because he is a God of love and mercy you can repent and he will forgive you.
Complain about this comment
pmf;
"if in whatever version you have it seems to suggest that God made the animals after what came previously then check your footnotes - it might have an alternative translation"
You can squirm all you like but it won't work. It has nothing to do with the translation. Genesis 2 is very specific. It not only tells you that god made the animals after he made Adam, it tells you WHY he made them, to see what Adam would name them. If Adam didn't exist yet, the passage would make no sense. In this regard, Genesis 2 is consistent within itself and inconsistent with Genesis 1 in ANY translation. Not nearly good enough. Try again.
Complain about this comment
K, that then makes us wonder why you even brought these people up in the first place. If you can't defend their position, don't bother mentioning them.
Paulmcfarland, if I were you, I would be a lot more worried about getting this wrong. The notions you talk about do NOT rescue a young earth, and we've been over a few of the reasons for that. They are directly refuted by direct observation of ancient events. It's not a question of being apostate or atheist - it is a question of what actually works. If god *did* create the universe over billions of years, and life by evolution, then she is going to be rather cross with people like you causing the little ones to stumble. I suggest you get measured up for your millstone.
Your Hebrew needs a bit of work - the sense in the original chapters of Genesis is quite clear; in Genesis 2, god made the animals after man, and the woman after the animals. There is no valid interpretation for God being Delia Smith ("Here's one I prepared earlier"). Just read it, for goodness sake.
Genesis, as I keep repeating, is NOT "history", it sure ain't "science", and it is not even "metaphor" - it is context. It is a collection of origins myths; all cultures have them; it is foolish to consider them "true".
Complain about this comment
jmf
If you were a hundred miles east of NI and all you could see was water in every direction right to the horizon ten miles away, that would not put you in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, not even close.
I plowed through that stuff over forty years ago in its unadulterated form, I'm not doing it again through the prism of some kook and then argue it with someone who admits he couldn't possibly understand it.
"Marcus, Helio etc you criticise faith, yet belief in dark matter and dark energy requires blind faith."
No, it requires acceptance of an inescapable logical deduction based on observations we can make directly. The theory will ultimately be confirmed with new observations or refuted when alternative explanations for the observations we have that are consistent are found. Blind faith has nothing to do with it.
"special creation requires you to construct ridiculous explanations without an ounce of evidence"
Your statement as an excerpt taken out of context is by pure chance the only rational thought you've expressed. Too bad you didn't mean that, it might have shown some sign of real intelligence after all.
"One day you will be subject to him in judgment."
I'll take my chances you're wrong. But if one day I find you're right, I just might punch his lights out. He certainly would deserve it.
Complain about this comment
Im amazed to hear someone defend Creationist deception in this case as "investigative journalism". Lying about your identity for jounalistic purposes is justified when the goal is to expose criminality. End of story. That's not what happened here. This was an attempt by creationists to deceive honest academics into participating in a film that would mangle their views into an anti-Darwinian narrative. That's what happened. If there's a crime here, it wasn't committed by the Darwinians who unwittingly took part. It was cmmitted by people who say they honour the Bible's commandments against dishonesty. We knew their science was a sham, now we know their theology is a sham too.
Complain about this comment
Helio and Marcus
When you criticise the Biblical text or claim to have found an error, you can't just pluck a few words out of whatever translation appears to be the most awkward to you.
You give no reference to the Hebrew or Greek and regardless of whatever explanation is given you simply say it is not good enough and give no valid reason based on technicalities of the text or tenses, or the source critics who originally thought up your ideas eg. JEPD source theory. Scoff as you might but it pretty much is a case of 'prepared earlier'. Thats what the Hebrew conveys. Helio perhaps you could tell me why in this case my Hebrew "needs a bit of work" (referring to the Hebrew)?
And if gen1/2 does contradict, source critics (scholars not laymen) with similar views to yourselves on errancy and gen1/2 believe all the sources to have been changed and redacted to provide a flowing consistent account. Surely the whole theory is self-defeating... If this error is so obvious how could the redactors have missed it?
Perhaps you would like to propose a theory as to how such 'contradictory' stories could have been placed side by side? I think your understanding of the composition of ancient literature needs a bit of work.
You need to stop using flimsy excuses against the Bible when you can't defend them. The very fact that you keep attacking the Bible shows your inability to defend the science - you simply completely ignored the refences I made to Earth-centrism in the last post.
Don't play games with God, you need to be ready. Whether Christ returns first or you die first, you will have missed your only opportunity for the forgiveness of sins.
"how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?"
Complain about this comment
Marcus - apologies as I see you have posted info on dark matter etc. after your post on gen1/2. and did not 'simply completely ignore it' - sorry my mistake.
Regarding dark matter...
"No, it requires acceptance of an inescapable logical deduction based on observations we can make directly. The theory will ultimately be confirmed with new observations or refuted when alternative explanations for the observations we have that are consistent are found. Blind faith has nothing to do with it."
And applying Occams razor how can your explanation be less complex than 'God did it'? You have exchanged the simple truth for an explanation that gets increasingly and increasingly complex, but with every step creates more questions than it answers. The "inescapable logical deduction" is only required as a result of rejecting the more obvious solution that we have been created special. "The theory will ultimately be confirmed with new observations or refuted when alternative explanations for the observations we have that are consistent are found." Creation is a perfect alternative, but is simply unpalatable for you. You reject it on the blind faith that the existence of your dark matter "will ultimately be confirmed". If something doesn't exist, and you are locked into your theory because you hate the alternative, then you will look and look in vain for your evidence until your eyes cease to function. Why do you insist on being so determined against a loving creator God?
Complain about this comment
Creation is a perfect alternative, but is simply unpalatable for you.
No it isn't Paul. That's just nonsense and shows a complete lack of knowledge about cosmology. I would strongly advice you to have a go at some of the OU's short 10 pt courses if you are genuinely interested in the subject.
I think a little hispory of cosmology might be useful as well. Prior to 1923 (yes as recent as that) astronomers, believe it or not, thought the Milky Way was the Universe. They could see these wispy clouds and assumed they were clouds of gas orbiting the Milky Way. Why did astronomers thisk this ? Because tbheir telescopes weren't powerful enough. At that time the largest telescope was owned by the third Earl of Ross in the ROI. However, with the construction of the the Mount Wilson Obeservetory in California astronomers were able to image stars in other galaxies. In 1923 Edwin Hubble was measuring distances to astronomical objects. One star in the Andromeda galaxy was so far distant that it couldn't possibly be inside the Milky Way. This was a milestone in modern cosmology and has changed our view of the Universe ever since. Really the birth of modern cosmology.
So, just have a think about your statement for a moment. Any astronomer (irrespective of religion or lack there of) who proclaims that God and creation (recent creation ?) is an explanation for dark matter is going to look pretty silly in a few years time when we do finally work out what it is. Although we can't see dark matter we can observe the effects (or are they all down to God ?).
One statement I have heard recently from Professor Gerry Glimore really caught my attention though. He has said that if dark matter isn't what we think it is then all our ideas on gravity are completely wrong.
As I say, if you really are interested in the subject why not have a go at an OU course rather than listening to nutters such as Hartnett who is contributing absolutely nothing to the subject (you'll not find his ideas in any text book for example) ?
Complain about this comment
Paul, we are not playing games with god - it is you who is telling god how she should have/must have made the universe, as well as who she should be, and pardon me, but I find that terribly arrogant. I imagine that even if god existed, she probably would too.
The problem with your effort at interpreting Genesis is that you are under the impression that the writers and editors were *trying* to depict a true account; you are presupposing that they were historians in the modern sense. In fact, it is perfectly obvious that this is not the case. They were simply laying down the origins myths of their culture (~8th century BC). There was no onus on them to remove contradictions - the naive literal interpretation of these writings was only to arise much much later. They were not writing "the word of god", but the stories that comprised their origins folklore.
This is where you are going badly wrong - you think that I am criticising Genesis here - I am doing nothing of the sort. I am actually something of a fan of ancient writings, be they Hebrew, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc. The methods and intent of ancient storytellers was not to convey fact, but to paint pictures. They were adept at many of the same forms that we see today (the Book of Esther, for example, is a masterful example of the fictional political thriller, and the Song of Songs is a beautiful piece of erotic poetry - one of the most popular artforms of the time).
It is you who are forcing an unsupportable interpretation on the text. You are reading in something that isn't there, and never would even have occurred to the person who wrote it, never mind the later editors, fixers, translators, etc.
Yes, I *know* there are some people who insist on a literal reading of the bible as history, and they have constructed all sorts of ludicrous epicycles to help them maintain their fantasies, but they are tramping all over the texts and the real history to support their vanity.
Complain about this comment
pmf, I'm not locked into any theory which is the exact opposite of what a religion is. Science looks for the best theory that fits the observations. If new observations don't fit with the theories previously developed from observations and deductions, then the theory has to go even if another theory is not evident. Religion starts with an unbendable theory and then forces the facts to fit it. If facts can't be made to fit then they must be ignored. Those who won't cooperate are put to the torch.
The theory of dark matter has nothing to do with whether god created the universe or there is no god. It is based on observations that conclude what the total mass of the universe must be through mathematical deduction and then recognizes that when all of the matter that can be accounted for by what can be seen is totaled up it only adds up to 5 or 10 percent of what is expected. The difference has been dubbed dark matter. One way or another the dilemma will be resolved through further discovery, not through resorting to superstition to sidestep the issue by those who don't understand it and those who have them fooled by pretending to. I'm not wasting time on the mumbo jumbo of your links. If I need further explanation of the latest thinking, I'll refer to a legitimate journal of physics by a respected organization like AIP. Your links are worthless to me and you are wasting your time posting them if you expect me to read them and sift through them to find their falacies. One day I wasted an entire hour and a half of my life listening to one of these fools, a Wilder-Smith who appeared to be in some kind of drunken stupor and gave a diatribe that was something like a cross between a voodoo witchdoctor's chant and a priestly sermon. BTW, Dawkins revealed what a fool Andy McIntosh was right on Sunday Sequence when in a debate a couple of years ago, McIntosh made the absurd statement that the spontaneous formation of DNA violated the second law of thermodynamics. After that, no credible scientist in the world should give him the right time of day for his ignorance. As a supposedly trained professional, he's an absolute fraud. Leeds University where he teaches is to be condemned for not having fired him and I for one give no credence to any of its graduates who might apply for work. From my point of view, it's lost it accreditation.
Complain about this comment
pmf
"And applying Occams razor how can your explanation be less complex than 'God did it'?"
Trying to dumb down science so that simpletons can understand it doesn't make it right. How would a primitive explain the Empire State Building, a 747 jet airplane, or the space shuttle? They'd say god made them...and they'd be wrong. It's not my fault if you either wasted your opportunity for a real education or didn't have that opportunity. I do not have to think down to your level of simplicity just because that's the best you can do.
Complain about this comment
Helio, your interpretation might be nice and all that, but considering the punishment for false prophecy was getting stoned to death, I hardly think your interpretation fitting. The whole justification for keeping the Sabbath as a commandment was because God had created the world in six days and in the seventh rested. This is repeated time and again. I don't know about you but I don't think I would be too happy if I was going to be stoned for not basing my working hours around what everyone knew to be a myth (especially if it would be centuries later before the myth would even be written - according to your timeframe)... "Sorry Helio, no offense but were going to stone you because Johnny made up a story (or will do in several hundred years) about resting on the seventh day." Doesn't make a lot of sense. It actually means that you have no respect for the ancient text, because it's not really an ancient text at all, to you it is a highly redacted text made up of a mish mash of different sources from different time periods. To understand it you arbitrarily dissect it - dating each verse separately according to will/presuppositions.
peterJhenderson, its not that creation provides an explanation for dark matter, rather that in a Geo-centric universe dark matter is not logically required. From our perspective on earth observing the universe the evidence says we are at the centre.
http://knol.google.com/k/spiros-kakos/earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe/2jszrulazj6wq/39#
However due to the assumption that we can't be (if there is no special creation) then it is assumed that regardless of where you are in the universe, the perspective must then be the same as that from earth (always appearing as though you at the centre).
This assumption makes things incredibly complex, and so dark energy and matter are proposed as a theoretical solution to the gravitational problem that arises.
The point I was making is that it is much simpler to assume that the evidence gives a straight-forward solution - namely that we might actually be at the centre of the universe. This could be proved wrong, or dark matter may eventually be discovered, however given all the evidence at this present time, the Earth-Centric model fits the evidence the best. It is because of an anti-God bias that with religious fervor you hold on to unsubstantiated theories requiring other undiscovered elements such as dark matter.
Why deny the obvious?
Complain about this comment
Marcus - please see post 140 to peterJhenderson regarding dark matter. Not my intention to lead you on a wild goose chase I assure you - that's why I chose to express the views of Hawking and Ellis - unless you think they don't know what they are talking about?
I don't believe in the racist idea of primitive peoples though I'll assume you mean people from a less educated culture. I don't see why they would think 'God did it' for the empire-state building, since every culture knows how to build. Regarding the 747, well... God made birds and they are infinitely more complex so I don't blame the 'primitives' for that one. I would imagine that the reaction to a bolt of electricity would be to say it was 'supernatural' (similar to 'God did it') but the problem is that even there you can't say that 'God didn't'. Yeah we all know how to use batteries, we know how current works etc etc etc, but regarding the minutest operative details of the universe, the physical and mechanical laws, how can you not say 'God did it'. What is the alternative?
'God did it' could be used as a replacement for dark matter. ie. some gravitational force is missing therefore 'God did it'. However that is not what I am suggesting. It's the more simple alternative...Earth-centrism (where no dark matter is required).
But you are so opposed to Earth-centrism - because you are opposed to God - so you would construct a much more complex alternative even when there already exists an explanation that is a much better fit for the evidence.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, oh dear.
Don't try to present Spiros Kakos as a credible Paulmcfarland. He is a chemical engineer, and author of a chess programme. With a little research and probulating I have come across some of his other musings namely,
"Some things for the theory of evolution are yet unanswered: How does a system evolves in something more functional over time? We know from physics that every system's entropy (quantitative measure of the disorder of a system) increases over time (law of thermodynamics). How species then evolve by pure luck? Scientific experiments with flies and other insects have shown random mutations over time, but none of these mutations has led to a better species."
These arguments have been addressed time and time again, even on the witness stand. Behe himself has stated that his musings are just that, musings and at present unresearched and unpublished (makes you wonder why the god-father of the ID field can't research a single piece of credible work no?). The law of thermodynamics argument is extremely old, and has been addressed numerous times; and finally good old Spiros Kakos clearly has little to no understanding of speciation (past or present theories), genetics, or apparently even the actual theory of Natural selection itself.
Can you Paulmcfarland defend any of the criticism Spiros Kakos has in reference to Evolutionary Biology? because I doubt he could himself, if he chose to debate them.
For more hilarity I'll link his diatribe here.
http://www.geocities.com/spiros_lidar/index
Note the "interesting links" at the bottom of the page, and his closing statements. Just goes to show you don't have to question a source to hard to find it's true intent.
Complain about this comment
Is the lead article actually meant to be news? creationists being dishonest! par for the course really!
BTW I really haven't a clue why creationists keep posting their earth-shattering/Nobel prize winning/earn them billions opinions on blogs/MB's(no offence to Will C)when they should of course be out testing their ideas! but they never do!(I wonder why?)I don't know but sounds really stupid to me!Oh right I forgot it is fundamentalist Protestants we are talking about :-/
Complain about this comment
pmf
"Marcus - please see post 140 to peterJhenderson regarding dark matter. Not my intention to lead you on a wild goose chase I assure you - that's why I chose to express the views of Hawking and Ellis - unless you think they don't know what they are talking about?"
Ever since I was 17 years old sitting in Dr. Hans Meissner's course in second year college physics and he said that sometimes we look at electromagnetic energy as waves and sometimes as particles so we call it wavicles and when we see it as particles we call them photons and they have no mass, I've had my doubts that any physicists really knew what they are talking about. It occurred to me many years later that although I knew hundreds of equations that explained what these fields did, I had no idea how they did it and neither did anyone else.
(Dr. Hans Meissner who recently passed away was the son of Walther Meissner)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
Perhaps I'll take a look at your link after all. If you have a specific point to make, let me know what it is. I'm tired of wild goose chases following other people's links.
You don't believe that there were people alive in my lifetime and possibly still are who live in areas so remote they've had little or no contact with civilization and live much as all humans did in the stone age? You have a lot to learn. The last episode of the fascinating documentary movie Mondo Cane' which hasn't been seen probably since the 1960s has for its last episode a piece about the Cargo Cult in Indonesia. Eerie watching them sitting up all night in a vigil in their bamboo control tower waiting for the bird of paradise to alight on their makeshift aircraft landing strip they cleared out of the jungle to disgourge its presents for them.
Complain about this comment
rather that in a Geo-centric universe dark matter is not logically required.
The Universe isn't geo-centric. Paul, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Please have a go at some of the OU courses if you are gernuinly interested in the subject.
By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what is your level of expertise in science ?
Complain about this comment
Hi DD. Long time no see. Hope you are well.
Complain about this comment
Hi PeterH
Indeed it is a long time no see! all well here, hows your good self?
Complain about this comment
peterJhenderson - before I tell you... tell me what level of education would be necessary for you to really believe me without doubt?
Also tell me why the universe can't be Geo-centric?
Complain about this comment
Paul, this is astonishing - you AGAIN are posting without understanding. No-one is accusing the authors & editors of Genesis of "false prophecy" (although I *am* accusing you of very very false exegesis and ignorance of science and interpretation of ancient texts). They were recording the origins myths of their culture. Myth has a very specific set of functions in the understanding of cultures. Homer wrote myth (or spoke myth!). The Helkiopolitans (no relation) wrote myth. The Hebrews wrote myth. The notion of "contradiction" only came later.
My purpose in pointing out the glaring contradictions and errors in the bible (and they are legion) is NOT to denigrate the corpus of texts (that is an irrelevant point; they are what they are), but to show that YOUR personal, rigid and ill-informed interpretation of how those texts should relate to science is doing them a crazy and terrible injustice.
I don't blame Baruch or Jeremiah or Huldah or whoever wrote Genesis. They were doing what ancient people do. they were not writing science - they were writing myth. Remove your pejorative glasses; READ the darned thing for goodness sake!
And then look at the science. As we have repeatedly pointed out, even under the silly ad hoc notions you presented, a 6000 year old earth idea is completely *unrescuable*. It does not matter whether dark energy exists, or the Milky Way galaxy is at the centre of the universe (I'll bet not!). You still cannot get the universe we see *right now* in 2009 shoe-horned into a ridiculous 6000 years (or even 6 million). It does not WORK.
Now try something more useful, Pleeeeeeze.
Complain about this comment
Nice work pmf! If the assembled throng did manage to squeeze out of their comfort zone and peruse Hartnett's cosmology, they would find a model that no longer requires black holes and dark matter to balance their equations.
Can't imagine they'll visit, but here's a wiki article that outlines the concept...
http://creationwiki.org/Cosmological_relativity
Complain about this comment
CMI have a statement on their web about the film as well as a statement by the director and the document sent to all interviewees prior to their interview.
http://creation.com/the-voyage-darwin-film-defended
Complain about this comment
Ah, the post pulling has started again, my opening post in this thread is gone (as well as a few others). Yep, no criticism of faith allowed whatsoever, respect must be automatic and absolute. On the Whitewell thread ReubenSmith made a comparison between North Korea and the way WW is run (which also got referred to the moderators btw). Seems a rather appropriate comparison for the new atmosphere on the blog here too.
Complain about this comment
K, Hartnett's cosmology does not rescue a 6000 year old earth, as we have already explained. If you think it does, you have a job of work to do. Less of the links and more of the issue, please. You are not the little billy-goat gruff. We are not waiting for the middle-sized billy goat gruff - YOU need to do the explaining here. How do you get out of the fact that we are seeing events that occurred millions of years ago?
Complain about this comment
honestly guys, do Helio and PK REALLY lie away in their beds at night pondering on the age of the earth and mechanisms of evolution?
or are they more nervous as they realise that they MUST intellectually defend the old earth chronology and evolution in order to prop up their religious worldview?
Christians can and do funcation perfectly well with theistic evolution, eg CS Lewis, but athiests are arguing here primarily from existential terror, not scienitic conviction.
The clue is because they speak of this science as though it were immutable absolute truth. They do represent mainstream science, but they do so with the language and tenor of fundamentalist religion.
-What caused the big bang?
-How can life begin itself?
-What holds the universe and earth stable when it came from chance and chaos?
-What happens your personality when you die?
-Why do athiests get away with using an arbitrary religious prejudice to silence any suggestion that we might consider a God hypothesis as one among many?
ie nobody can give an objective scientific definition of what they mean by "supernatural".
That is not to suggest the supernatural should run rampant through science. But when so much exotic theorhetical physics and cosmology is treated with such respect but the possibility existence of God is not.... well I think that is pretty arbitrary and unscientific religious prejudice at work in the field of science.
Especially when the founders of modern science were all inspired by their faith.
Kepler: "Science is thinking God's thoughts after him".
Peace
OT
Complain about this comment
How do you get out of the fact that we are seeing events that occurred millions of years ago?
Correction Helio. Thousands of millions (i.e. billions) years ago.
Complain about this comment
Helio
korotiotio posted a good link: http://creationwiki.org/Cosmological_relativity
Very basic explanation of how we can see distant stars in a young universe - If we accept the most obvious explanation of the scientific evidence (that of Geo-centrism or more properly Galacto-centrism) then we are located near the physical as well as gravitational centre of the universe. Relatively (rather according to Relativity) that also means that the farther the position is from the centre (of the universe and therefore also the CoM) then the faster time flows (relative to the centre). Light could therefore be billions of light-years away but still only take a short time (thousands) to reach us from our time perspective.
Helio If you want to know more I'll happily send you Hartnett's book to your local post office where you can pick it up. Just need a post office and a name.
Regarding the 'prophecy' in Genesis - I wasn't saying that your belief in Genesis requires it to be false prophecy per say. A prophet declared the 'word of the Lord' (or made predictions). Blasphemy was serious too. Writing myths riddled with "the Lord said..." etc would have been met with stones.
Some 'myth' has to be true, there was an origin, it's just that I believe the Bible (I have no reason not to believe it historically etc) and you believe evolution. We both believe our own views are based on evidence yet by showing your bias against the plain and obvious explanations you reveal your bias against the simple truth.
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
Complain about this comment
Korotiotio,
Your reasoning at the start of post 156 is insanely wrong. One of the very basic parts of the theory of relativity is that the speed of light (in vacuum) is a constant. No strong or weak gravity field near or far from the earth is going to change that, let alone by the factor of a million you need to explain the light from billions of years away reaching us. Your explanation, in which you put forward the theory of relativity for support, goes completely against such a fundamental part of the theory. Anything after that is completely unsupported.
Complain about this comment
PeterKlaver
Question...
Two men, one at the top of a high mountain, one at the bottom. A third man at an equal distance from the two men shines a light at them which they will soon observe. Does one man see the light before the other? Obviously yes - the man at the top - due to gravitational time dilation.
However this does not mean that light is travelling faster but that time is moving quicker. They would record that they saw the light at the same time according to their own clocks, but the clocks are moving at different rates.
Do you agree?
Complain about this comment
Paul, PeterK did you a grave injustice in confusing you with Korotiotio - apologise, Peter, you Bad Man! Yeah yeah yeah, I *know* the excuses you have for the light, but they don't work. No matter where you look in the sky, you will find that the relative reference frames are, while marginally variant, nonetheless rather flat - TOO flat by many orders of magnitude to allow the light to have got here in thousands of years. In fact, what you (and I would assume Hartnett) are proposing is this: the UNIVERSE *is* in fact billions of years old, BUT the EARTH is recent in its very own specific little timeframe.
In other words, your model is explicitly this: the earth was created billions of years ago, then the rest of the universe etc, but the space pixie somehow relativistically "stopped the clock" (or at least slowed it down spectacularly) on Earth, before kicking it off again about 6000 years ago, flattening our reference frame wrt the rest of the universe and smoothing it all out so it looks like nothing happened.
Got it so far?
Complain about this comment
pmf
It's clear you don't understand special relativity, the first and easier of the two parts of the theory and the one I understand. Since the two observers and the source are all stationary, their clocks all move at the same rate. They only change while one or more move with respect to the others.
Complain about this comment
Helio
'Flat' reference frames requires an even dispersal of mass. A Universe with no CoM would be completely flat.
You are surmising the reference frames are flat because you are assuming against Geo/Galacto-centrism. The point is that the evidence for 'flat' reference frames is lacking, and so a magic ingredient to push the CoM away from earth to nowhere (and everywhere at the same time) is required....dark matter.
Round and round we go.
helio I don't believe you are genuinely interested in discovering truth. But if you ever are, "Seek and you shall find".
Complain about this comment
pmf
In further consideration of the problem you posed, it appears to be considerably more complex than I originally thought. This is not because time runs at different rates but because differences in the gravitational fields the light beam encounters along the different paths will cause different curviture displacements of space and therefore different path lengths. That will affect their exact transit time. This is what the 1919 eclipse experiment proved, gravity curves space. Since not only is the earth's gravitational field slightly different along the two paths but the gravitational fields created by the sun and moon (we know their gravity affects the tides) will be different too. Therefore there is not enough information given in the problem as you stated it to make it solvable since we don't even know where the sun and moon are with respect to the space the light travels through. You left that out of the problem. Anyway, the calculations would be quite difficult even if they were known and of course we do not have data for the positions of other celestial bodies which add their gravitational attraction as well.
Before you read a book that tries to disprove what 99.9999% of the scientists in the world who are expert in a field believe, you would do well to read, study, and understand enough about the area in question so that your own knowledge can qualify you to make critical judgements about which theory is right. This was the blunder Andy McIntosh made. His expertise in thermodynamics as applied to mechanical engineering where he was expert was not nearly sufficient for him to make critical judgements about the thermodynamics of chemical reactions, an area where his knowledge seemed entirely lacking. Therefore by presuming incorrectly that it was, he made a fool of himself at least in the eyes of his colleagues. Of course his congregation ate it up but then they'd swallow anything he said.
Complain about this comment
pmf,
Sorry for mixing you up with korotiotio, as Helio said that was very bad of me.
I don't think that what you brought up in post 158 removes the problem of necessarily violating the limit imposed by the speed of light for your idea to work, at least as seen from some point. While time dilation could help you out somewhat in one part (I don't know enough about it to quantify that from the top of my head, but the factor of ~million you need seems impossibly large), I think it wouldn't work from the other end. The observer standing at the point from where the light is originally transmitted would have to be in a part of the universe billions of years old, wouldn't he? Unless light traveled a million times faster than it did, someone shining a flashlight at the other end of the universe would have to wait billions of years before that light reached earth, as seen from his/her perspective?
I also have a language-technical nag about light years. It's a quantity used throughout cosmology to measure *distance*, even while containing something expressed in units of time. No problem, if the speed of light was roughly the same everywhere as Helio suggests (and what agrees with what I've learned about it). Wouldn't all sorts of answers (and for that matter, what the universe looks like and how it behaves) vary by up to a factor of a million if what you said about differences between reference frames were true?
Complain about this comment
Paul, I'm afraid you are just tossing out words without the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. My characterisation of the model YOU are purporting solves YOUR problems is pretty clear to anyone who has even a smattering of relativity (Markie - you're clear on what I'm talking about, yes?). It has NOTHING to do with where centres of mass or gravity exist, and everything to do with the local character of spacetime that we can and do observe.
Let me repeat - the only way your funny little notion works is if time is made to stand still on Earth (by whatever means your space pixie can employ - white holes, black holes, worm-holes, hell-holes, whatever) while the rest of the universe is allowed to age by 13 billion years. That's it in a nutshell. Or case.
Do you understand?
Blink twice for yes, once for no.
Complain about this comment
to Orthodox-tradition,
Wasnt Kepler a firm believer in Astrology too? I feel your quote is a little misplaced at best. I think I have a better one.
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you. George Carlin
Complain about this comment
Geneboy, we can have the full verion for that one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Complain about this comment
Geneboy
OT is a highly disingenuous character who has been inflicting their dogmatic, fundamentalism on here for years.
The 'questions' that OT raises have been dealt with many times, especially the canard concerning the "supernatural". This 'point' was answered by various posters many times-OT's definition of "supernatural" is whatever hardcore Protestant Fundamentalism says.
OT loves to dish the questions out(which have been answered) but is not fond of answering them and there is a very long list of questions.
For example on this thread...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/04/vermont_legalises_gay_marriage.html#P
OT makes the laughable point..."I try not to post about anything unless I have taken the trouble to inform myself about it somewhat.
After that I am generally quite careful not to stray any further in my conclusions or observations than which I feel I can reasonably defend."
Yet as can be plainly seen myself and Peter Klaver pull OT on this point, give examples and OT as his wont runs away!
Also on this thread..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/04/christianity_v_fundamentalism.html#P
In which OT stated that he *never* said anything derogatory about homosexuals, however Peter Klaver illustrated the example in which OT equated homosexuals with a "Tidal wave of filth"! yep nothing derogatory there!Thankfully a lot of the long term Christians on here know OT and are not fooled, indeed he has been labelled "The Pharisee".
I guess you a newbie here Geneboy, please hang about OT is tremendous entertainment! However my general maxim in dealing with fundamentalists is Never debate an idiot because the best thing you can say is...you beat an idiot in a debate.
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Wasnt Kepler a firm believer in Astrology too
Newton was far more famous for his alchemy than physics.
Complain about this comment
helio I don't believe you are genuinely interested in discovering truth. But if you ever are, "Seek and you shall find".
He'll not find it on CMI's website I'm afraid.
Complain about this comment
DD & PJH,
Entertainment value is half the fun, and cheers for that wee clippy. I just have it on mp3. For some bizarre reason I've not to date looked up GC on youtube.
/facepalm
Complain about this comment
We havent't heard from Pastorphilip on whether he thinks the Universe is expanding or in a steady state. Although Cosmologists have settled this a long time ago, you'd think he'd offer the Christian position on it. Perhaps he can find an appropriate passage in the bible and give us the true message straight from the lips of god himself. I hope there are no translation problems with this one.
Complain about this comment
Geneboy, you are way welcome to our happy little land - what's your take on this "genetic entropy" nonsense? It seems hard to believe that this Sanford punter was actually a *biologist* at one point.
Complain about this comment
Sure thing bud, here goes this might get a bit long in places so bear with me.
Sanford was indeed a Biologist at one point. His expertise and depth of knowledge is really without reproach. B.Sc in horticulture and an M.Sc/Ph.D in plant breeding and genetics. Add to this the fact that he was an associate professor for nearly two decades at Cornell, co-developer of the genegun (among numerous other patents) and it would certainly be very easy for someone to place him up on the pedestal. Aside from knowledge that by his own admission that he became a born again Christian and young earth creationist post Ph.d. during marital problems, there is no need to resort to ad hominem attacks on his character. His theories seem to do most of the work for us on that front anyway.
Sanfords genetic entropy is analogous to the already present population genetics term mutational load. That is the concept that, in a population, deleterious mutations must accumulate (with a frequency of mutation/selective disadvantage). In the standard models mutational load is offset by selectional load (advantageous genes/alleles march towards fixation) and segregational load (heterozygotes maintain equilibrium through hybrid vigor). Layman will be fairly familiar with the hybrid vigor or heterosis in dog and plant breeding whereby hybrids are fitter than pedigree; if you have ever tried to grow from f2 seed packets you will note that the seeds they produce often give inferior plants, this is because the plant breeders produce them from F1 parents knowing that the F2 strain will be very fit. What Sanford does is quite artfully dodge the role of beneficial mutations, and focus entirely on the deleterious ones.
Sanfords strawman arguments essentially extrapolate ad absurdium from the theoretical works of Haldane and Kimura. On the one hand it depends on Haldanes dilemma, a theoretical calculation that posits that new highly beneficial alleles can effectively drive a population extinct (i.e. lots of mortality when a new allele arrives and clears the way); and on the other Kimuras neutral theory of molecular evolution, that states correctly if the population size or selective advantage of an allele (gene) are too small then the allele can be effectively regarded as neutral. The idea is essentially this, that the likelihood of having an allele that is beneficial is extremely low; on top of which if said allele arises it is unlikely to be fixed or reasonably represented within a population in a timely fashion at best, and at worst it will drive the parent population extinct. The neo-darwinian synthesis has multiple solutions for these theoretical problems including but not limited too silent third codon mutations, pseudogenes, junk DNA, conserved sequences and mutational hotspots, selective sweeps, purifying selection and synergistic epistasis.
By subtly weaving these together and over inflating the number of deleterious mutations by several orders of magnitude he decides that that the genome can do nothing but deteriorate over time. The resultant claims being that mutations do not create information (sigh), are rarely beneficial and those that are beneficial are effectively neutral. He further posits that geneticists never see beneficial mutations and that plant breeding has resulted in no meaningful crop improvement. Can anyone spot the bias here already? I hope everyone remembers his horticultural background, and Im sure that even the staunchest of believers in creation can find several examples of how plant and animal husbandry has produced meaningful crop improvement.
However regarding his theories he falls within first few sets of hurdles so to speak. Regarding Haldanes dilemma (which would over inflate the length of evolutionary time required to separate any two species or reduce the observed differences), Haldane himself even recognised that the work was unfinished; and Bruce Wallace more or less laid this dilemma to rest twenty odd years ago, correcting many of the invalid assumptions in the calculations. Likewise with Kimuras curve it depends entirely on the value of selection used and whilst this may generally apply to humans due to our historically low population sizes, it becomes irrelevant for other creatures (namely those with large historically populations). When we look at such species like Caenorhabditis, Saccharomyces and Drosophila we find the opposite effect to that of humans, namely that very slightly beneficial mutations can accumulate as evidenced by codon usage bias (genome streamlining for quick translation into protein). In effect if we were extrapolate his theory to the natural world and ignore the observed data, these species would have to die out every few thousand generations and be created from scratch. I wonder who the creator is in his theory?
The real problem though is the claim that there is no evidence for selection of beneficial mutations. Over the last decade numerous papers have been published indicating the contrary including but not limited too,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413514a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6909/full/nature01140.html
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030170
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/suppl_2/R245
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164411?cookieSet=1&journalCode=genom
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/8/980.short
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000144
which as you can see proves empirically that this is not the case.
Outside of Genetic Entropy, He also resorts to more standard ID/YEC arguments. Namely in the Kansas evolution hearings where he advocated that we were intelligently designed and that A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole, can anyone else say specified complexity? Double facepalm on that old chestnut. Recent creation, nothing but bad mutations attributed to the fall, and a genomic apocalypse coming. Truly absurd stuff.
Regarding his publications. It should be noted that he has published two peer reviewed articles, concerning this subject. Both are in reference to the computational model that he and his colleagues (who it should be noted are also creationists), have presented in the computer program Mendels Accountant. The publications are also in journals concerned primarily with computing and not biology, and to date I cant find any references that have actually generated datasets using the program. So it is perfectly valid to assume that the scientific community has largely discounted this work.
At the end of the day though, his work on the Genegun vastly outweighs the deleterious nature of this stuff, as it clearly isnt selling well or getting much air time. In my opinion everyone is allowed to go a bit funny in their old age, although for me it will probably be meds, sponge-baths and dirty limericks.
Complain about this comment
How very odd, the application is removing my quotation marks. That's quite annoying.
Complain about this comment
Wrong thread, fanny baws!
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the references to beneficial mutations Geneboy. It's good to have some examples at hand in these debates, as the 'only detrimental' argument comes up so often. Very good to have you on board on the blog as a new regular here. Especially at a time when we've had a horde of fundies join us from WW.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Marcus - haven't been following the debate on this thread word for word (Some of the guys do go on a bit!)
On the matter of cosmology, can't claim to be expert in that area, but some verses from Scripture come to mind:-
"He also made the stars..." (Genesis 1v16)
"He counts the number of stars and calls them all by name..." (Psalm 147v4
"The heavens declare the glory of God..." (Psalm 19v1) - on a clear starry night, it's hard to disagree with that!
Complain about this comment
Phil, what does he call Fomalhaut?
Complain about this comment
Pastorphilip;
:"He counts the number of stars and calls them all by name..." (Psalm 147v4"
When the psalms were written, only about 4000 objects could be seen in the sky with the naked eye. But today we know there are somewhere between 50 billiion and one trillion galaxies and each one should have from hundreds of billions of stars up to one trillion stars our own galaxy as is now believed to contain and larger ones many times more. How long did it take him to count those stars and did he write their names down anywhere so that man could call them by the same names? I don't suppose he let Adam name any of them the way he let Adam name the animals according to Genesis 2. BTW, I think there are around 750,000 known different species of insects alone. Did Adam name them all or did he leave a few out?
Complain about this comment
Isn't the generic response for that, that he only had to name the "kinds"? I can't remember where I read it, but I do recall there was some civil engineer teacher from the institute of creationist research, that decided ad hoc that it would only have taken five hours to name everything.
Stuff and nonsense. Rigid adhearance to some aspects, total fantastical interpretation elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
frankly pastorphilip you never cease to amaze and puzzle me.
"On the matter of cosmology, can't claim to be expert in that area"
I don't see how any priest, minister, rabbi, or other Christian or Jewish theologian can not claim expertise in this area. The bible starts out not by describing the creation of life but by describing the creation of the universe itself. It's a story they tenaciously stick to whether a particular theologian or religion interprets the bible literally as you do or figuratively as some others do, the Catholic Church I presume these days among them.
Christians "Creationists" claim special knowledge about the origin of life including human life in which they "invoke" what they consider scientific discovery, how can they at the same time escape providing explanations or knowledge of the cosmology of the universe without which life could not have been created. This seems very evasive to me, a kind of selective expertise on those issues they want to argue and a complete abrogation of their responsibility to explain other equally important accounts of creation.
So I expect to see theologians explaining the discoveries of the Hubbell telescope, how relativity theory works, how gravity works, how electromagnetic radiation works, black holes, super novae, quantum mechanics with equal zeal and expertise that they explain the origins of life. They claim all the answers are in the bible if you just look for them. As our guides to god's creation we can expect and demand nothing less than for them to show us the true path to knowledge just as they always have.
I look forward to your elucidation of how the bible explains all of the foregoing and so much more that I've left out and I want to thank you in advance for the time and trouble you will take to help all of us here.
Complain about this comment
Geneboy...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413514a0.html
"The rapidity and bias for amino-acid-altering nucleotide changes SUGGEST adaptive evolution of the morpheus gene family during the emergence of humans and African apes."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6909/full/nature01140.html
"Core haplotypes that have unusually high EHH and a high population frequency INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF A MUTATION that rose to prominence in the human gene pool faster than expected under neutral evolution."
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030170
"We HYPOTHESIZE that positive selection in some of these genes may be driven by genomic conflict due to apoptosis during spermatogenesis. Genes with maximal expression in the brain show LITTLE OR NO EVIDENCE for positive selection, while genes with maximal expression in the testis tend to be enriched with positively selected genes."
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/suppl_2/R245
"Comparative genetics/genomics studies in recent years have uncovered a growing list of genes that MIGHT have experienced positive selection during the evolution of human and/or primates."
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164411?cookieSet=1&journalCode=genom
"We discuss current studies examining the role of positive selection in shaping copy number variation and noncoding genomic regions and highlight CHALLENGES presented by the study of positive selection in the human genome."
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/8/980.short
"Here, we evaluate the power and efficiency of a simple outlier approach and describe a genome-wide scan for positive selection using a dense catalog . More generally, these data provide important practical insights into the LIMITS of outlier approaches in genome-wide scans for selection..."
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000144
"Here we present the most comprehensive examination of mammalian PSGs to date...Genes that are specifically expressed in the spleen, testes, liver, and breast are significantly enriched for PSGs, but NO EVIDENCE was found for an enrichment for PSGs among brain-specific genes."
..Geneboy: "which as you can see proves empirically that this is not the case."
Not one of the sites gives EMPERICAL evidence. It is all CIRCUMSTANTIAL and as such highly speculative and very much in danger from bias. In fact rather than the circumstantial evidence they provide being in their favor, it reveals a hideous flaw. With their suggestions and hypotheses they have failed to even convince themselves of any evidence for Positive Selection in the brain, yet it is clearly the brain development which distinguishes us most from primates.
Anyway positive selection wasn't really the problem. It was the question of whether or not you could actually find emperical evidence for a "positive" mutation. I realise that it is highly debatable what a "positive" mutation is environment dictates. However even if you could provide a few that we could talk about that might be good.
In the mean time I will give you a link to think about (please watch it - when it stops just press play again to start the next part)....
http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/
Complain about this comment
Holf on a second there sunny jim. Are you just reading the abstracts?
Complain about this comment
Cherry picking phrases and words from an abstract is a poor form of criticism, even you should know that. Secondly empirical evidence in science is that which can be verified or disproved by experimentation and thus replicated. Your definition I feel is that of a layman, i.e. originating from observation and experience.
Are you seriously suggesting that science must only be conducted by direct observation?
Tons of valid empirical data is collected via indirect observation.
Go back, reread those papers. Decide based on their hypothesis, methodology and results rather than a cursory scan of the abstract.
Complain about this comment
Argh, I should really just write all this stuff down in on place and mull is over rather than chain posting.
Sanfords arguments are hideously flawed, right to the very core. The specious reasoning that he presents does not reflect one iota of the data we have been accumulating, and only works in silico. Which oddly enough is the only place it is found, i.e. Mendels Accountant.
Complain about this comment
Finally,
No one is arguing that mutations are 'positive' as you put it. Rather they are looking for evidence of positive selection.
Complain about this comment
I really should gather all this stuff up,
Additionally new scientist had a lovely little article about gene evolution in March, I'll link it for those unfamiliar.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16834-five-classic-examples-of-gene-evolution.html
Complain about this comment
Alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.
Gen 2:19 Vayyitzer YHVH elohim min ha adamah...
And the Lord God formed/had formed from the ground...
Here the qal vayyiqtol 'vayyitzer' is not temporal but describes habitual actions, actions in progress, or even completed actions that have unfolding, ongoing results.
The term imperfective does not refer to tense, though. Biblical Hebrew does not have tense like English or Greek (time of action is conveyed by context). Imperfective refers to the kind of action being described, not the time of the action. An action can be viewed in process in the past (was walking), the present (is walking), or even the future (will be walking).
The temporal aspect is determined by context. The New International Version of the Bible along with some others translates this verse, 'Now the Lord God had formed... He brought them to the man...'
In other words, the creatures he had previously created.
R L Harris states:
The alleged contradictions of Gen. 1 and 2 can certainly be answered, although the solution may be found both in matters of fact and viewpoint. The contradiction is said to lie in the differing orders of creation Gen. 1 has plants, animals and man; Gen. 2 has man, plants, animals and woman. The problem is not real. The plants mentioned after man in 2:9 are clearly plants in Eden. The animals mentioned in 2:19 had probably been created previously and were now brought to Adam for recognition. S. R. Driver declares that this verb form in Gen. 2:19 cannot be translated by a pluperfect had formed, but he gives no evidence (Introduction to the Literature of the OT [ed 1910], p. 8). In 2 Ch. 21:3 the identical form clearly refers to a pluperfect situation. Moreover, it can be argued (cf. this writers article, JETS, 11 [1968], 17779), that Gen. 2 refers exclusively to events in the Garden of Eden and not at all to the events of general creation. Therefore, a contradiction would be out of the question.
Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (1:951). Wm. B. Eerdmans.
One final point. The Biblical 'kind' and taxonomical 'species' should not be confused.
Complain about this comment
Geneboy (76) and chickens.
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions....
All based upon a worldview, a faith. The religion of Uniformitarianism of which Darwin is the messiah and the evolutionary 'scientific' establishment, the orthodox church, and the present self-appointed Pope is non other than Richard Dawkins who continually talks in unveiled praises when he speaks of his Lord. Of course, all who deviate from the pronounced truth are heretics who must be ridiculed and ultimately... burned. How dare we ask questions about orthodoxy. Shout us down, ignore us, revile us.... silence us. You would if you could!
Complain about this comment
Gen 2:19 Vayyitzer YHVH elohim min ha adamah...
And the Lord God formed/had formed from the ground...
Here the qal vayyiqtol 'vayyitzer' is not temporal but describes habitual actions, actions in progress, or even completed actions that have unfolding, ongoing results.
The term imperfective does not refer to tense, though. Biblical Hebrew does not have tense like English or Greek (time of action is conveyed by context). Imperfective refers to the kind of action being described, not the time of the action. An action can be viewed in process in the past (was walking), the present (is walking), or even the future (will be walking).
The temporal aspect is determined by context. The New International Version of the Bible along with some others translates this verse, 'Now the Lord God had formed... He brought them to the man...'
In other words, the creatures he had previously created.
R L Harris states:
The alleged contradictions of Gen. 1 and 2 can certainly be answered, although the solution may be found both in matters of fact and viewpoint. The contradiction is said to lie in the differing orders of creation Gen. 1 has plants, animals and man; Gen. 2 has man, plants, animals and woman. The problem is not real. The plants mentioned after man in 2:9 are clearly plants in Eden. The animals mentioned in 2:19 had probably been created previously and were now brought to Adam for recognition. S. R. Driver declares that this verb form in Gen. 2:19 cannot be translated by a pluperfect had formed, but he gives no evidence (Introduction to the Literature of the OT [ed 1910], p. 8). In 2 Ch. 21:3 the identical form clearly refers to a pluperfect situation. Moreover, it can be argued (cf. this writers article, JETS, 11 [1968], 17779), that Gen. 2 refers exclusively to events in the Garden of Eden and not at all to the events of general creation. Therefore, a contradiction would be out of the question.
Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (1:951). Wm. B. Eerdmans.
One final point. The Biblical 'kind' and taxonomical 'species' should not be confused.
Complain about this comment
Fireprior, those arguments have been tried before; they do not work. Genesis is myth. It is not history. It is not allegory. When it was written down in the 8th or 7th century BCE, the priest(s) writing it down *knew* it was myth, in exactly the same way that storytellers all around the world tell their stories, but appreciate that they are myth. Indeed, pretty much the whole of Genesis is myth. Myth is *context*; it is a narrative scaffold upon which societies/cultures hang their various values or other myths or laws or literary allusions etc etc. There is no requirement (nor indeed expectation) for myths to be *true*. Failure to recognise this is to do the bible a grave disservice, and leads you into all sorts of silly nonsense, such as creationism and naive biblical literalism. It is not big, and it is not clever.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan (City/citizen of the sun - interesting name)
You talk much but say little. 'Genesis is myth'. Do you understand myth in its near Eastern context? Obviously not. Myth to you is the colloquial idea of not true. In context, myth is a vehicle for conveying truth or worldview. So we could say that the theory of evolution is myth. That is, a way of describing one's world view. Whether you think it is history, the Biblical writer clearly wrote it as history, albeit filled with theology and that that is clear from the script. You are assuming the Graf-Welhausen hypothesis on the origin of Genesis, which is not entirely established and if the supposed priests (or Elohists or Yahwists or Deuteronomists)'knew' that Genesis was myth, that does not mean they believed it to be untrue. I'm glad you admit it is narrative story rather than allegory etc. You say that there is no requirement for myths to be true but you are wrong when it comes to Biblical truth. It is clear from later narratives, especially the later Hebrew writings and the New Testament that Genesis was understood as actual history.
Again, you blurt out that creationism is nonsense and that literalism (now that needs defining) is naive but again, assumptions.
Incidentally, academically, I have studied both science (BSc Biology) and theology - Bachelor of Divinity majoring in ancient history, theology, philosophy, Greek and Semitic languages. I also hold a diploma in theology and Religious studies from Cambridge University.
But of course, because I don't tow the party line, my academic background will mean nothing. But there we are. I am a creationist and a catastrophist and my beliefs are based upon my faith in the Bible. I see the same evidence as you but come to a different conclusion. Now then, that would be the start of a whole new thread... We'll see.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolis
By the way, you haven't addressed my points on Gen 2:19. You say the arguments have been used before. Who used them? How were they answered? How are you going to answer my points? Please spare me a reiteration of 192. You said in an earlier reply to someone that their Hebrew needed some work. Enlighten me with you erudition. What was wrong with his or her understanding of Hebrew?
Complain about this comment
Oops, my Greek and some nice red wine are getting the better of me. I should have said Heliopolitan.
Complain about this comment
Fireprior,
It's a myth get over it, deal with it.
Yawn we have all been over this before...
Complain about this comment
Fireprior, there is firstly no natural reading of the text that puts gen1 in continuity with gen2, nor is there a natural reading that makes the anomalous order of creation scenario in gen2 consistent with gen1 - the pluperfect is a highly ad hoc "solution" to the problem, and is not supported by the context. This is pretty obvious. Your "reconciliations" are extraordinarily rickety and ad hoc. We've known this since the time of Augustine (and before; as I said, the original authors and editors were perfectly aware that this was MYTH they were recording).
But better than that, we can TEST it. How old is the universe? Billions of years. OK. there goes the NLI, and we can concentrate on whether it is allegory or myth. I would argue myth for many reasons, not least of which is the reason that it was even written down at all. We KNOW it is not true; we KNOW it is inconsistent - how many clues do you want the ancient (human) authors to give you???
Complain about this comment
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster be praised, a real zealous nutcase on the blog.
"Of course, all who deviate from the pronounced truth are heretics who must be ridiculed and ultimately... burned. How dare we ask questions about orthodoxy. Shout us down, ignore us, revile us.... silence us. You would if you could!"
Oh PriorFire, so many thanks for that. I LOOOOVE your utterings of persecution syndrome. One of the typical responses of those who have no substantial arguments to present. They either call it all a great conspiracy, or complain about the tone of the debate rather than the substance, or go into the (yawn) 'not fair not to give attention to our views, HELP HELP WE'RE BEING REPRESSED!'. Lovely PriorFire, could you post some more like that?
And then, to confirm the intellectual bankruptcy of his case, PriorFire resorts to making argument from authority:
"Incidentally, academically, I have studied both science (BSc Biology) and theology - Bachelor of Divinity majoring in ancient history, theology, philosophy, Greek and Semitic languages. I also hold a diploma in theology and Religious studies from Cambridge University. But of course, because I don't tow the party line, my academic background will mean nothing."
Indeed, if you had had more substantial scientific credentials than a BSc, that still wouldn't have made for an argument in itself. You show your lack of scientific credibility by appealing to the diplomas you have. Try presenting a scientific argument instead. And no, copy-pastes from the Answers in Genesis website aren't any good in that either.
Complain about this comment
Persecution complex? I think not PeterKlaver. I've never experienced persecution and certainly do not class the, from a distance, I can hide behind these words sort of banter on this blog as persecution.
By the way, who mentioned conspiracy? It certainly wasn't me. And as for the tone of the contributors or whether attention is given to my views - I couldn't care less. I am merely expressing them.
Another point. I was not trying to argue from academic authority. As you rightly point out my qualifications are graduate level. I was only trying to show that I have a broad understanding of both biology and theology. Even if I had a PhD it wouldn't matter to you because I don't hold the 'orthodox' view.
Why does mentioning my diplomas mean I lack scientific credibility? For one, I only mentioned my theological diploma and secondly, my only comments so far on this blog have related to a theology issue. If I want to express a view on science I will in my time not according to your demands. Oh, and as for using AiG I wouldn't copy and paste. After all, that would be plagiarism, wouldn't it? No, if I find something interesting, I will do what any good student does, take the relevant information and include it as part of my research.
Zealous - definitely. Nutcase - some of my friends think so. Real - as they come.
Feel free to continue praising your FSM.
Complain about this comment
Dylan Dog. Go and have a sleep. You are obviously too tired to think.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan. Who is trying to make Genesis 1 and 2 a continuation? The whole of Genesis is subdivided into themes with the headings, 'These are the toledot of....' The first is Genesis 2:4 'These are the toledot of the heavens and the earth.' Genesis 1 paints the cosmic picture culminating in humanity's creation while the first toledot story is anthropocentric and focuses in on the relationship between YHVH and Adam.
Incidentally, my argument was not about pluperfects but the non-temporal nature of Hebrew verbs.
'We've known this since the time of Augustine (and before; as I said, the original authors and editors were perfectly aware that this was MYTH they were recording).'
Who are the 'we'? If you have read any of Augustine's works, and I assume you have, then you will know that he liked to allegorise everything in the Bible. As for the Biblical authors, how would you know what they thought about their writings?
I like your test. 'How old is the universe? Billions of years'. Assumption. 'We know it is not true.' Assumption. 'We know it is inconsistent.' Assumption. The original authors and editors were perfectly aware that this was myth they were recording. Assumption.
So I'll leave you to your assumptions and get on with following mine...
Complain about this comment
FirePrior, I actually do have a background in the biological sciences, as well as a modest qualification from a major UK university in an area of direct relevance to interpreting the role of myth in Ancient Near Eastern societies (turns out that the role of myth in the ancient Near East is pretty much the same as the role of myth in lots of places, but never mind).
There are two issues here: 1. did the writers of Genesis think they were recording REAL ACTUAL history; and 2. is it REALLY ACTUALLY CORRECT?
The second is easiest to answer, and your list of "assumptions" suggests that you really have very limited understanding as to why scientists say what they do. So I do wonder whether you learnt very much in your biology degree, but again, never mind. The bottom line is that we CAN use Genesis if we really want to as a set of hypotheses about the universe, and put them to scientific test. Is the universe a few thousand years old? Well, the DATA suggest that it is billions of years old. So what is the matter with Genesis? Doesn't really matter. It's wrong.
Genesis suggests there was a worldwide flood that lasted a couple of months. The geological data flatly contradict this; there is no evidence of such a flood. Why is Genesis wrong?
Genesis suggests that biological organisms were created in separate corralled "kinds" (whatever that means; lions & tigers in the same "kind"? What about horses and zebras? Humans and chimps? Humans and chimps and gorillas? H,C,G & Orangs - oh, where do we *stop*?). Biology shows very clearly that species are related by descent, and they bifurcate off from ancestral populations. The genetic evidence for this is spectacularly strong; creationists have NO explanation for this; Genesis doesn't even get in the door.
So, the bottom line is that what you like to call "assumptions" are in fact highly robust evidence-based assertions that *can be tested*, and *have been tested* and *pass the test*.
So, whatever way we look at it, the poor old creationists have an Epic Fail on their hands.
But back to the myth - Genesis is remarkably similar to many near eastern myths kicking around at the time - it was assuredly NOT the progenitor of these myths (we have many earlier examples), but part of the folklore. The two stories simply arise from different strands of folklore that got put together, and the "toledoth" are simply the remnants of that.
If that causes you a conflict, guess what has to go? Yep, you guessed it - the ancient folklore. The sad thing is that by taking the unsupportable and purely ad hoc naive literalist position, you are treating the bible poorly, and the science even more poorly. In trying to ride both horses, you are missing, and falling in between.
Complain about this comment
Call me naive, call me simple, but I have a Christian faith and no degrees. I believe the Bible is true and that God is real and one day I will see him in heaven. How can you judge the truth of the Bible unless God gives you a spiritual insight ? Were you there when the world was formed, neither was I, but I don't have to try to prove how it happened.
Complain about this comment
@Fireprior,
I have an extremely strong Biology foundation to a Doctoral level, so lets not get into a qualification penis waving match. I find it irritating, and incredibly childish. See what I did there?
You have an issue with the evolutionary origin of chickens? Are you mad? Please, I would love to hear your critiques of the key papers concerning fowl evolution. I do sincerely hope that your understanding of evolution exceeds secondary school, as if it does you will know that much of evolutionary theory concerns neutral or near neutral mutations that we use to examine phylogeny.
The power of molecular ecology comes not from demonstrating that which is intuitive i.e. all cat and dog breeds share a recent common ancestor; all primates share a recent common ancestor; all whales share a common ancestor. But rather the relationships that are unintuitive, i.e. whales, hippos and cows; Elephants, aardvarks, moles, shrews, dugongs and manatees; Platypii and echidnas; Tapirs, Rhinos and horses to name but a miniscule fraction. You'll note I didn't include humans and primates, because quite frankly I see it as a non-issue that they are our closest cousins on the Earth; and if you had seen the wonderful exhibition of primate faces in the Natural History museum a few years ago I feel you would think the same.
These unintuitive relationships are cemented in the light of molecular evidence, and are contrary to the concept of a "kind" to it's very core. We may have several different species concepts that can be contradictory, but isn't that far superior to estimation by eye into "kinds"? I guess you are quite satisfied with the bronze age taxonomy, so why bother right?
You may scoff at the fossil record, yet it is very informative to us and I note creationists cherry pick examples here and there to prove their wacky ideas; you may scoff at radiometric dating (note I did not say Carbon dating, as there are many ways to skin that cat), even though it has been proven to be highly accurate time and time again and again I'll note that creationists cherry pick research that suits their world view; but you cannot scoff at molecular data. We know from studies of pedigree the modes of inheritance that occur both in the wild and in the laboratory, and as such have fairly robust models with which to compare and contrast genic and non-genic sequences to elucidate shallow population and deep phylogenetic structures and processes.
We will never get the 100% accurate picture of life on earth that scoffers like yourself require, but then we don't have too. It's not in the nature of science to make those sort of claims, but then I guess you would know that. Teasing out the subtle relationships, and the "true" story of the origins and diversification of life on earth requires a more surgical tool than a bronze age man holding up his thumb to two species and declaring "same!" or "different!". It seems to me that the majority of creationist and ID supporters seem to be stuck 150 years in the past; Biology has come a long way since Darwin, with many strands of thought and research that are completely divorced from the idea of natural selection, perhaps it is time you hit the books again and caught up.
As Helio stated, you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to be a religious person, be religious and accept that the modern world has a better understanding of the modern world than a Bronze Age scholar but dont attempt to argue from the epistemologically moot position that Evolutionary Biology is a religion; because it quite clearly isn't. Assuming a natural explanation for the natural world is in no way a religious standpoint; quite the opposite in fact. The primary reason being that we are unsatisfied with just so and god did it stories, especially when they are proven to be wholly incorrect.
I think perhaps your gripe with science runs much deeper than just evolutionary biology. Perhaps it is because you like many fail to see the influence of your omnipotent diety on the natural world? Perhaps it is because the contributions science has made to society are tangible in comparison?
Genesis and the Bible are no more history books than Jack and Jill or Lord of the Rings. Dont you think its about time you realised that with a bit of free and rational thought. Dont worry if there is a God I doubt he would mind, I think he would probably be quite flattered that his creation has started to stand up on its on two feet so to speak.
Geneboy out.
Complain about this comment
Hello ozixtn,
"How can you judge the truth of the Bible unless God gives you a spiritual insight ?"
From observable evidence that contradicts the bible.
"Were you there when the world was formed, neither was I, but I don't have to try to prove how it happened."
That is extremely poor reasoning. Just because no one was there, doesn't mean we can't determine how something happened. That's what forensics experts do all the time. The murder victim won't tell you what happened, neither will the murderer in most case. Yet if there is sufficient physical evidence we can reconstruct what happened that lead to the death of person X or Y even if there was no one there who will tell us.
I don't hear you railing against forensics. So it is noting to do with proving things from physical evidence that you have difficulty with in general. It is when that evidence shows your christian faith to be fairy tales that you get all uncomfortable. You should consider the inconsistency in how you readily accept science in practically all areas of your life. And indeed, given the awesome track record it has, only a fool would deny it. Do you want to live like a fool by ignoring it in selected areas and clinging to the superstitions you were brought up in?
Complain about this comment
ozixtn, actually, we *can* see back in time, and we do that every time we look up at the stars. Even with the naked eye you can see back over 2 million years. When you look at the Andromeda Galaxy, what you are seeing is stars orbiting other stars, undergoing novae, new stellar formation, sending out light that has specific spectra absorbed in gas clouds (individual molecular and atomic *events*) - all that are *happening* over 2MYago. If you were in Andromeda NOW and looking towards Earth, you would see the analogous situation, as it was 2MYago on Earth. And on that little planet, a species of ape was wandering around the African Rift Valley, with no knowledge of what was going to happen later.
It's beautiful. You are right though - what gives these arrogant creationists the idea that THEY know how to interpret the bible without looking at the science and the cultural context in which those documents evolved and were edited, copied, moulded? The answer? Nothing. They do not have that knowledge, and they are provably wrong.
Complain about this comment
Helio is my new God.
Complain about this comment
"Helio is my new God"
All we need now is a song. What about 'Shine Helio shine' ?
Complain about this comment
You have your god and I have mine.
If you want to leave the spiritual element of life out of the equation and solely relay on naturalism - things made themselves that is your bias. I certainly don't discount science, some the worlds best scientists have been creationists - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Boyle, Pasteur, Galileo, pascal. Forensics are great but an eye witness beats speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. You can start with your suppositions about the formation of the world and presumptions that I was brought up on fairy tales and superstitions, I wasn't actually, I didn't read the books about the world being millions of years old. I choose to believe that man's wisdom is finite, so I will not exclude an intelligent designer/creator/saviour. We all make our own choices and one day we will all die, I am confident of my future, are you ?
Complain about this comment
Who was the "eye witness" at the creation of the world?
Complain about this comment
"We all make our own choices and one day we will all die, I am confident of my future, are you ?"
Yes, I am.
Complain about this comment
ozixtn, forgive me, but that is a very inadequate response, both from a scientific perspective and a Christian perspective. Most, if not all of the main Christian denominations accept that the universe is billions of years old, that life, including humans, evolved, and that we are but one planet (a very very interesting one, of course) among probably billions across a very vast universe. This is as certain as it gets.
What this means for religious people is that they have to challenge their assumptions about how they interpret their previous imperfect understanding of both their bible and the science. Indeed, this is biblically *mandated* - people have misunderstood the bible for many many years, for example the Pharisees and high priests at the time of Jesus of Nazareth were spot-on with their biblical reasoning - except that it was wrong. Creationists are the modern equivalent with regard to much of the bible - they sell it short. "Now we see, as through a glass, darkly", as Saul Paulus put it. You MUST go back and challenge your preconceptions, and the only way to do that properly is to look at the evidence. Genesis does NOT provide a scientific understanding of origins.
But this is nonsense:
some the worlds best scientists have been creationists - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Boyle, Pasteur, Galileo, pascal.
Not ONE of those scientists defended a naive literal interpretation of Genesis. ALL were working in comparative ignorance of the scale of the universe, the age of the universe, and the principles of biological evolution. Most of them had been dead for years before we understood the principles of geology or astrophysics. You are engaging in a dishonest argument, and that is a naughty thing to do. Seriously. It is up to you to check your sources and not bear false witness.
Forensics are great but an eye witness beats speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past.
Did you read my post? We ARE eye-witnesses to events that took place over 2 million years ago, and telescope-witnesses to events that took place *billions* of years ago. The writers of Genesis were not eye-witnesses to their myths, but at least they appreciated that they were writing myth. It is tragic that people who *claim* to be defending the bible are doing nothing of the sort, but dragging it down to the level of their knuckles.
I choose to believe that man's wisdom is finite, so I will not exclude an intelligent designer/creator/saviour. We all make our own choices and one day we will all die, I am confident of my future, are you ?
I would be very cautious if I were in your shoes of twisting the bible to suit my prejudices, or misrepresenting it. There are some sharp admonitions in the book of Revelation about doing that. It's OK - you were brought up with Sunday School teachers telling you this, that, and the other - so was I. But when you approach something of the importance of science, you need to exercise a little humility - you are in the realms of the Holy - and if you misrepresent that, or twist that, or cause the little ones to stumble, you are making a Grave Error.
And as for Christians who accept evolution (and indeed argue passionately for it), I might mention Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala and many many others.
You seem like a nice person; you need to broaden your worldview.
-H
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
"You are obviously too tired to think."
And you just don't...think!
Complain about this comment
Yawn!!!! Yeh, it's catching....
Complain about this comment
I narrated the documentary THE VOYAGE THAT SHOOK THE WORLD.I had no idea that Fathom Media was a "front" for a creationist organisation. If I had known this I never would have agreed to do the job.
Matthew O'Sullivan
Complain about this comment
Is that the real Matthew, or someone trolling (sorry, but it does happen! :-)? If it's you, it would be a very good idea for you to contact William directly, and spill the beans.
Complain about this comment
A few thoughts for the creationists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iaJo7cxybc&feature=channel_page
Complain about this comment
It might be Pratchett at work, but I much prefer the Iroquois myth of the world being on a turtles back. Have we disproven that one yet? or are there Iroquois creation scientists busily attempting to drill cores through the world to find the spine of the world turtle? or the remnants of the Mongols studying samples of the world frog?
I guess even those ideas are a little bit too rediculous for you creationists, right?
Complain about this comment
They're no more ridiculous than talking snakes or worldwide floods etc. But it is ridiculous to think of members of the Iroquois Faith actually asserting that the myth is *literally true*. Many cultures who preserve their creation myths do so in the full knowledge that they are *stories* and *folklore*; they are part of the cultural context, and they illuminate and pervade the culture itself. As such, they perform a very different function from "belief" (which is a very peculiar thing when you think about it).
Tragically, some people *believe* that Genesis is supposed to represent a real account of the creation of the universe, when ALL the cultural evidence from the Near East and every other flippin' place on the surface of the globe indicates that ALL cultures have these myths, and NONE of the others are held up as "true" in a fixed sense.
Creationism is an anomaly, caused by people's ignorance of science, of history, and of their own cultural heritage. Genesis is a collection of *folklore*. That's it. End of.
Complain about this comment
Will, you gave Fern Elsdon-Baker a very easy ride for a very straw-man and frankly muddled thinking. Epigenetics is inheritance of "acquired characteristics"?? Lateral gene transfer is somehow against the "Selfish gene" idea? Dawkins is not permitted to raise arguments for atheism in the course of his arguments? Elsdon-Baker's argument is all over the place. She claims Dawkins is speaking from a personal perspective and is "out of date"? On the basis of those arguments?
She is also not telling the truth when she says that Dawkins says it is a "scientific fact" that there is no god in "The God Delusion". You should have asked her for chapter and verse. You've got a rather confused person on your hands there with no actual argument, but loads of handwaving.
Complain about this comment
Oh well, if no-one else is going to get het up over this, perhaps I should expand. In particular (and this is the irony that Elsdon-Baker appears not to get), mechanisms such as lateral gene transfer and epigenetics ONLY start to make sense in biology if you take a/ an evolutionary view, and b/ a gene-centric view. Leaving everything else aside, this is one of the great achievements of the "Dawkins school" (he's not really the originator of this viewpoint, but has become associated with it since TSG) - it allows us to understand how apparently weird things like altruism and epigenetics actually evolve.
Another area that I'm not sure whether Elsdon-Baker addresses is that of evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo. There is the concept of developmental canalisation - evolution cannot (arguably) go in any direction it chooses, but certain aspects of evolutionary history, most obviously body plans, but also biochemistry and even the genetic code itself, only leave certain avenues for change open to the population as evolutionarily viable routes. For instance, tetrapod vertebrates are unlikely to evolve a new set of wings on their backs, while retaining their other limbs. It is not an avenue that is available to us.
TSG did not really have this concept, but it is dealt with a bit in Blind Watchmaker (by Dawkins), and by many other writers more specifically aligned with the evo-devo side of things, such as Wallace Arthur. Maybe someone can clear this up when they read Elsdon-Baker's book - if she was really trying to criticise the gene-centric model, I would have thought evo-devo would have been a more profitable area for her (although she would still be committing rather a few fallacies).
Complain about this comment
The primary mistake she makes Helio, is that she assumes epigenetics to be divorced of standard inheritance; as though the genome had an abstract layer above it. Everything we find pertaining to jumping genes, horizontal gene transfer, DNA methylation and chromatin remodelling indicates otherwise.
I don't think she appreciates that there is a gaggle of genes at work enabling these genomic processes to function. For example DNA methylation's action is reasonably well understood, with classic cases such as Prader-Willi and Anglemans Syndrome being diametric opposites of genes deleted within the paternal and maternal chromosomes respectively. They demonstrate the role the parent plays in the subsequent somatic development of the child, much in the same way of the maternally inherited mitochondria. However the genes functioning to produce this alternate gene silencing are under more extreme selectional pressure than most, as a loss or change of function often means very drastic changes to the phenotype. Epigenetics does not function in a vacuum like some sort of Lamarckian magic wand, but rather requires a very solid genetic base for its functional parts. Likewise for lateral/horizontal gene transfer we have excellent study organisms now in the form of the heterotrophic protist Hatena, and the solar powered sea-slug Placida dendritica. These are demonstrating clearly that such epigenetic modes of inheritance are very temporary, with the host organism rapidly incorporating the necessary genes and subsequently inheriting them in a standard mendelian fashion.
Whilst it is very true that the old paradigm of one gene, one protein equals one trait is very much dead and indeed only holds for a few handfuls of examples; it is entirely unnecessary to subsequently state that because there could be upwards on thirty genes collaborating in an additive or otherwise fashion, that only an "holistic" approach holds. This argument from incredulity regarding mendelian inheritance is an incredibly weak epistemological platform. Just because our knowledge of gene structure and function is accelerating at a vast rate and that weismann's barrier is more permeable than we once thought, in no way invalidates the gene-centric view; which as Helio rightly states is highly descriptive of the natural world, and in many cases the only way to understand key biological traits. I would think Dr. Elsdon-Baker should have spent more time studying the research, rather than its history and taglines.
Her comments on science communication I found a little bizarre too. I don't know exactly what science communication she has access too, but I rarely find that it incorporates all of the research from many different fields of study. Why? Because the general public find this to be both vapid and turgid simultaneously. Good communication presents unintuitive science in an intuitive way, nothing more nothing less. It isn't a synthesis of a body of work, but rather a hook to pique interest; popular science books don't teach people science. If you don't believe me have a squint at the Punk "scientists". I really don't see how they are communicating either a. science or b. comedy as they claim; and their approach is one of synthesis. On the contrary have a squint at Animal Autopsies or Inside Natures Giants; as a trained biologist I learned more than a thing or two from that one.
Finally I did note she was quick to allude to Dawkins background as a zoologist, partly invalidating any authority he may have. Dr Elsdon-Baker according to her bio at Leeds originally studied environmental science, shifting to history and philosophy. Does that in any way invalidate her claims? I can tell you right now I studied genetics, with a heavy helping of doctoral evolutionary genetics; and I don't think I would have the balls to make some of the claims she has.
Elsdon-Baker's book is a flea book, and one would hope if she was trying to make a name for herself in science communication that she could do a better job than to try to ride the coat-tails of others.
Complain about this comment
Geneboy,
1. We should talk :-) If Will gets time, perhaps he can do the honours and exchange email addresses...?
2. I agree absolutely with everything you've said there. Inside Nature's Giants is an excellent show (I haven't watched the Giraffe one yet - will catch it on 4OD soon) - really fascinating.
The striking thing about evolutionary biology is the really deep homology that is going on - whales have hyoid bones; humans have hyoid bones - the spectacular thing is that these are not just bones with the same name - they are the *same* bone - true orthologs, not just analogs. Ditto for the vast majority of features in whale and human biology (which is quite scary when you think about it).
You're also right about the one gene / one protein / one trait business - that has been toast for at least 50 years (I think it was Victor McKusick's work on Marfan syndrome that originally solidified the concept of pleiotropy; it's very obvious in retrospect). But even in 1976, RD was quite careful to state what he meant by the word "gene" in the concept of "the selfish gene" - really any DNA variant that has a phenotypic effect distinguishable from its allele - that can be a duplication, a point mutation, a new initiation codon, new splice site, etc etc etc - even a lateral gene transfer (which is in effect just another mutation).
Part of me wonders if Fern Elsdon-Baker came up with the funny title (Selfish Genius), and then felt she had to write a book around it, and join the fashionable sport of Dawkins-bashing. Whatever. I'd prefer it if she took on the actual argument, rather than such an unconvincing straw man. I note that she heads up the British Council's "Darwin Now" programme - I've spoken with some of the BC folks about "Darwin Now", and I very much hope Elsdon-Baker's misconceptions are not going to get any official imprimatur from that august organisation.
-H
Complain about this comment
She is heading up the Darwin now programme? Oh dear, that is disappointing. I have a lot of respect for the British Council, I think in the past they have done a wonderful job of promoting science at home and abroad. Ive participated in the café scientifique programme in several countries, as both guest and host. It would be pretty damning if they were holding up The selfish genius as some new paradigm; and I really do hate using buzzwords like paradigm.
Additionally I don't feel she fully understands the nuances and power of the gene-centric view, or for that matter its intellectual heritage through Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Hamilton, Williams, Pittendrigh and Maynard Smith to name but a few. Nor do I feel she understands why it is explanatory and entirely necessary to construct a model of life from a gene-centric perspective. But then I guess its pretty standard when one can't effectively criticise the theory to attack the man instead, and then throw in some loosely associated science and mined quotes to back up your argument. Wonder where we have seen this strategy before?
There real question is though, what on earth would be her encore? Presumably she perceives herself as some kind of intellectual maverick. I guess a thoroughly engrossing criticism of neutral theory would be next; look out Kimura and Nei she is coming to get you, regardless of the degree of parsimony your theories provide. Can anyone think up decent wordplay on "The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution" for her next flea book? Or is Kimura not well enough known by the public to merit that kind of treatment?
Regarding the deep homology, I couldn't agree more. I remember as a child thinking lots of animals had their legs attached back to front, it was only through learning of the homologous bone structures we share that what was once in my mind an elbow or knee became a wrist or ankle. Nature's Giants demonstrates this beautifully. Would any of the public have thought that Elephants walk on tippy toes? And dont even get me started on gill arches leading to jaw and ear bones. Totally blew my mind when I first heard it.
Helio, I will be emailing peter probably before the week is out. If thats a suitable way to get in touch?
Complain about this comment
If someone could answer a few questions it would be greatly appreciated.
1 Where do things like love and conscience fit into evolution, and how did they evolve?
2 What decides moral absolutes? (ie killing is generally accepted in regards to animals, why can humans not kill each other, as everything is relative
3 Is there any transitional creatures in the world today I could observe?
I know nothing about science, don't have any Degrees and believe in the Christian Faith as the Bible teaches.
My questions are not a personal attack on anyone, I am just curious how these things fit into Evoloution.
Complain about this comment
Geneboy, yep - Peter has my details, so he can do the necessary.
Auntjason, you are asking questions. As a scientist, can I firstly commend you for that, and encourage you to continue. Questions are fantastic; ALWAYS ask questions, especially if they are hard and bite into your assumptions and faith. Answers frequently generate more questions, and in science we are very happy to open one "black box" and find two interconnected black boxes inside. Science is not about having the knowledge as much as it is about the process of building a reliable knowledge structure.
In terms of evolution, the *fact* of evolution is not seriously disputed. We *know* we evolved; we *know* we share a common ancestor with chimps fairly recently, and other animals as you move further back, and eventually with all life. The theory of evolution is the "how" bit of all this. It's like knowing that the planets orbit the sun, and then having gravitational theory that allows us to put that all in an explanatory framework.
How does "love" develop in evolution? This ties into the concepts of "evolutionary stable states" (ESS); if you imagine a society where there is no love, it doesn't take long to fall apart. Individuals in a society that values love, who are "lovers" themselves, will tend to do well (reproductively); "non-lovers" will not. In human society, for all the woes and ailments that we have, most of us still value love, and love *works*. From an evolutionary standpoint this is not a paradox. it would be foolish of me to say that we can explain it all, but it certainly does not raise any new problems for human evolution. Indeed, we know that chimps and our other primate cousins - and even dogs - seem to have something like love too. We are complex neurobiological animals.
As for moral absolutes, human morality appears to be based on what we discover, and on what we hold up as our values. If we hold up the principle of human equality (as Jesus did, of course, as did many Jewish and non-Jewish thinkers before him and after him), a huge amount of our moral behaviour flows from that. Our decisions have consequences. We can see that, and decide how to proceed, taking that into consideration. I don;t think this is any different, whether you're a theist or an atheist.
And then there are the transitional creatures. If you have kids, then you are a transitional creature :-) Species never stay still. There is no "perfect doggie" or "perfect cabbage". Genepools are dynamic, and change with each generation, responding to selection and drift. Over many generations, they *move*; they change, and the phenotypes of the resultant organisms change too. It is a truly marvellous and beautiful thing. Lions and tigers share a common ancestor a little more recent than the chimps' and ours. Donkeys and horses likewise. Yet they are different and somehow "the same". As you move further back, populations coalesce more and more, as you run across the common ancestors.
The problem is that if you read it properly, creationism is not an appropriate way to approach the bible. It is a naive literalism that is not supported by the text (you will be aware that Genesis 1 and 2 appear to contradict if read literally). Genesis is myth. It is context. It is a set of the folklore of the Hebrew people who eventually became the Jews. It helps you understand how they got to be where they are; their cultural baggage and background. It is emphatically NOT a historical account of real actual events (although there may be some in there). Indeed, the Genesis 1/2 discontinuity is hard evidence that the authors of Genesis *knew* they were writing myth and not history.
So, believing what the bible teaches is NOT the same as swallowing what Ken Ham or similar corrupt people *claim* the bible teaches. One of the great successes of Protestantism was to put bibles in people's hands, directly. you can read it yourself (and I would encourage you to do so). When you've finished with Genesis, check out the resurrection stories, side by side.
All the best,
-H
Complain about this comment
Yes Aunt Jason
Do as Helio suggests, read the resurrection stories side by side, in fact copy paste them from Bible Gateway onto a table or chart, so you can see them all at once. (oh and ignore so called 'problem ending' in Mark, there isn't a problem with his ending) Then tell yourself the story, summarise it in your own words thinking about the various perspectives the gospels give us. Then read a good book on biblical interpretation, say Kenneth Bailey or John W. Wenham. Think about (find out about) the Middle Eastern context, genre, author's intent, compositional form and ask yourself, are these hopelessly contradictory? Helio and I come to completely different conclusions; Aunt Jason, there just aren't any faith breakers. None, nada, zip, zilch!
Complain about this comment
Your second example is very interesting. There is an abundance of empirical evidence demonstrating that animals are in fact very canny regarding competition of this kind. The rule rather than the exception appears to be that in nature intraspecific (within species) competition results in bouts rather than culls. Animals in competition have been demonstrated to assess adversaries prior to and during matches, more often than not resulting in stand offs submissions or dominance rather than arbitrary killing. From the hermit crab to the Tazmanian devil, behavioural ecology is replete with examples; although certainly there are clear cases of cannibalism, us included! If anything we appear as one of the worst species regarding intra-specific killing.
The fact is that even including murder most "killings" observed, are interspecific (between species) and predatory in nature to fulfil the function of providing the "killer" with the necessary energy to survive and reproduce, and thus do not suffer from such moral objections. Aren't morals just social constructs or rules we use to live together in an acceptable way? If that isnt the case then why is it that animals are very canny of these rules in nature?
The transitional creature is an entirely different proposal though. This strawman argument of creationism just refuses to stay dead and buried, even in light of the mountain of molecular evidence that has filled in the gaps of the fossil and extant record of species. The proposed separation of evolution at the micro and macro level is an entirely arbitrary determination, as has been demonstrated time and time again by biologists much greater than I. Ever wondered why most creationists accept the cladistic evidence for a family or "kind" such as dogs and wolves? But reject the exact same evidence when found to connect the much larger phylogenetic groupings such as placental and marsupial mammals? The creationist form of cladistics known as baraminology which accepts recent common ancestry but rejects universal common ancestry, or any piece of evidence contrary to its claims is widely regarded as pseudoscience nonsense as a result. It has a shifting goal post method for required scientific evidence demonstrating incredibly woolly thinking. We can't pick and choose which pieces of evidence we want, regardless of how much we want it. True you will never see a fully formed dog emerge from a cow uterus, but at the moment this appears to be one of the few evidences that creationist will accept, which really is quite ridiculous when you think about it as no one is suggesting that this is the mode of action that evolution takes. Richard Goldschmidt's idea of a hopeful monster that would produce such a creature has been more or less universally rejected within the biological community. It is simple is not needed for the theory of evolution to function as a parsimonious or best fit description of nature.
Prime examples of transitional forms can be found though and come from species complexes in action today such as the Greenish warbler in Eurasia, the Gulls of the Northern Polar ring, Ensatina salamanders of Western North America and even the Brown trout in our own rivers that demonstrate beautifully how speciation can occur in an ecological cline; resulting in distinct species with distinct traits, geographically and genetically connected yet unable to breed thus producing separate "kinds". Such environmental clines have been demonstrated and replicated artificially in the lab, with I kid you not drosophila brood that will only fly up or conversely down when met with a maze junction adopting opposing responses to gravity, and hooded rats with no hoods.
The fossil record is awash with intermediates from every tree of life that really are far too numerous to mention. When I hear creationists doubt the fossil record, I often wonder would they doubt a mountain or ocean if it were contrary to their claims. But we also have numerous examples of living examples that havent changed much morphologically when compared with ancient fossils; including Mantophasmatodea insects, Ginkgo plants, Cedar wood wasps, Red Pandas, Frilled sharks, Crocodiles, Horseshoe crabs, Crinoids, Nautilina and Wollemia trees to name but a very few.
Contrasting and complimenting the observed evidence of extant species and fossils, the molecular evidence starts, adds and turns many of our misconceptions on its head. Would you have thought that Elephants and elephant shrews were closely related? Or for that matter whales and cows? Or even for that matter that man and lemurs? One thing it clearly points to is that it mirrors the previous idea of nested cladistics. That we belong to a family, that belongs to a family, that belongs to a family and so on and so forth. The molecular evidence could just as easily have contradicted prior findings demonstrating no continuity and turning our understanding of biology completely upside down, but it didnt. The evidence for our shared ancestor with apes is incontrovertible, much as it is for dogs and wolves, for elephants and elephant shrews, for cows and whales and for that matter the whole lot together. When we look at the molecular evidence we dont see the literal biblical account of creation, not even one iota. To suggest that life is discontinuous and separated into discrete kinds is disingenuous and totally contrary to what we know.
Complain about this comment
Ah, Peter, the only point Auntjason needs to remember is that the gospels contain contradictions; there are things that happen in one that are flatly contrary to the reports in another. These are not documents written "from different perspectives" - they (at least the synoptics) are synthesised from variant traditions that diverged long after the resurrection, each accumulating its own wee version of the story. This is really clear if you compare Matthew with Mark. Of course Mark has a "problem ending" -it has been argued that the original ending of Mark was actually the supernumerary ending of John, which makes a bit more sense.
But yes, go print out the stories, line them up side by side in a table, and in particular ask yourself what the ladies really said to the disciples when they came back from the empty tomb. Was it "he is risen!" or was it "Someone has taken his body away!" It can't be both, and I rather suspect the latter is the truth.
Complain about this comment
Helio, Helio. (and Auntjason)
You really can't allow for the humanity of it all, can you? The hope, the fear, the rushing around, the panic, the grief, the confusion, the disbelief, the doubt, the possibility, the loss, the wondering, the realization, the 'coming to terms with', the, 'na, no it can't be', the uncertainty, the... reality of what humans beings do, recorded in all it's kaleidoscopic, earthy splendor. Zooming in and out on characters, picking up on particular responses, condensed or deliberately rhetorical writing. It has to be linear, has to be contradictory, has to be made up. Couldn't be real, messy, raw, ordinary, if it was the the story of a god, that would too much like life, and we wouldn't want that.
As for Mark, well, the last verse of Mark (verse 8) doesn't have to be the last verse (the final word or the end) if you see what I mean. So seeing as we're into comparing passages why don't you have a look at Mark 15:40 to 16:8, only scrap the chapter and verse numbers and read it as two accounts, one of burial and one of resurrection, and look for the structure and the 'high points' of the text. Not that I'm an expert or anything just an interested somebody.
Complain about this comment
Peter! You make my point! That is precisely what I am talking about here. This is a human story. *Of course* it contains errors, rhetoric, bombast, embellishment etc - I fully accept your argument here. The point is that there is no reason to take these accounts, human and confused as I agree they are, and assume that a resurrection occurred. At the very best, all you can say is that the body was most likely missing. This is not a particularly rare occurrence, but I would suggest that the removal of Jesus' corpse coincided with a Perfect Eschatological Storm, and the belief in a resurrection took hold, and people invented wee stories to confirm it, in the manner of urban legends since Cujo was a pup.
But we digress. Fern - she's a flea, and not a very good one. Sadly.
Complain about this comment
Hi just like to thank Heliopolitan, Peter, Geneboy for the comments.
I grasped a little of what you said, but I have to be honest most of the science is wasted on me. (sorry)
Do you not think that is a problem that exsists with science in that those who are not acedemic like myself can never really understand what is being said, and therefore have to believe what people are telling them is correct.
My make is such that I do not have it in me to reach the sort of acedemic standards required to grasp evoultion, as I have tried many times before.
I suppose Theology is similar but it askes you to believe in Christ by a supernatural work of the Spirit, that causes you to accept it as truth.
Although again it is not provable in a scentific sense.
Maybe it could be said the less intelligent and those who are busy have to trust what they are being told, which is something we do everyday doctors although sometimes to our destruction.
Evidence is good but not if we can't understand it.
And this is what makes Faith a concept that makes no sense in the natural because it is in a sense a subjective trust in a teaching that is not really provable to those who do not experience it.
I don't really know if being a pragmatist, rational, can satisfy the questions that go through our minds although these Philosophies can be helpful on a lower level of thought, and intellect.
To me intelligence is limited and complexities of the universe prove this to be so.
So how are we to fill the vacum of not understanding, I guess I fill mine with Faith in Christ as this gives me purpose to life as well as a promised future, and something of an answer to the reason why evil and good exsists.
Maybe I major on more subjective things in life, ie good evil love hate etc I don't know, all I know is that I believe in Christ and it does not really matter too much to me if the accounts in the Gospels don't exactly match, just as long as the thrust of what's being said is understood.
After reading the text of the resurrection I think all agree that Christ was not there, and we can know this by the fact he was seen later by his disciples and others.
The accounts do differ in that there is two angels, one man, one angel and so on, maybe it happened in squence and some of the women say one angel and some say two, we are after all talking of the supernatural here, and thats always going to be conflicting for a human.
It makes me think of John the revelator in that he could only describe what he saw by making comparisions to things he knew on earth ie it looks like this but I can't be sure what it is.
Paul the same in the body or out of the body I don't know God knoweth.
So I do know there is debates as to the Bible, and Genisis, although the conflict of GEN 1,2 would need to be explained to me.
Anyhow thanks for the time here guys all the best with your lives Science, Theism, Atheism, Christianity or what ever as for me I will continue serve the Jesus Christ throught the Spirit which given me life more abundently (Although I don't have much money guess I should start believing Benny Hinn and the money machine doctrines) death to sin that society my live in harmony.
All the best I have been treated well on here, even though my views differ.
Jason
Complain about this comment
Hi Jason
Glad you think you were treated well. Accept my apologies for butting in though, you had asked a different question, I just thought Helio's resurrection point needed a little rebuttal!
All the best. (and now back to the trenches!)
Helioliteral (sorry, couldn't resist)
The trouble with this blog is that there's no possibility for facial expression or voice inflection, so you're going to have to put it in yourself.
In a Pythonesque kind of way say the following: "You make my point! You make my point! Say no more! Say no more!"
How can you "fully accept" an argument I'm not making?
Maybe if you attempted deal with the last couple of 'scenes' of Mark we could move this discussion along a bit.
And no, it's not digression, you raised the issue to Jason, all I did was respond.
And BTW I'm not attempting to convince you that a resurrection happened (that would be pretty dumb), I'm just pointing out an alternative to cries of contradiction.
Complain about this comment
Sorry guys I know I sais my goodbye's but forgot to ask.
Peter Morrow : Do you believe in evoultion? and what is your beliefs in God and Christ do you believe the bible to be the infalliable word of God.
Helio: I take it your an neo Atheist.
Really I am not sure what debate I got in the middle of there and would be grateful if I knew what each person believed of studied.
Carry on now and I shall obseve from a distance.
Over and Out
Complain about this comment
Auntjason, please do feel free to stay and have fun! I am a Christian Atheist. I do not believe the bible to be the infallible word of god, because I do not believe in a god, and even if I did, a piece of text is only as infallible as the person reading/interpreting it. Text itself is neither "fallible" nor "infallible" - it is just information. The creationist interpretation of Genesis is wrong, as I have pointed out, but that is not to imply that Genesis itself is in any way "correct". The misinterpretation is not confined to there, however. Theistic Christians misinterpret the whole bible, pretty much.
But just because I do not accept the fantasy that the bible is "the word of god", that does not mean that I consider it of no value, nor have I any disrespect for the ancient authors themselves, and what they thought they were trying to convey. For that reason, I regard the creationist heresy as an utter disgrace, and I don't know why proper Christians have more trouble with us atheists (not sure what the "neo" means - I've been an atheist for 16 years) than they do with blatant liars like Ken Ham or that twit from Creation Ministries International, who treat the 9th commandment like dirt, while pretending to be "true prophets".
Complain about this comment
Hi Jason
Yes, I do take the view that the bible is the infallible word of God, because I accept that if there is a God at all then that God will communicate accurately about himself, but a number of things by way of clarification. In saying that God has communicated accurately I don't mean he has communicated exhaustively, in other words he hasn't told us everything about himself, nor does it mean that the bible is a kind of divine dictation with the writers being merely secretaries or word-processors. The view I take, and from what I can see it is pretty much the accepted reformed view, is that the bible is divinely inspired and trustworthy yet written by men each with individual characters, temperaments, talents, education, culture and style which God intended to use.
This is why I'm not bothered for example by Helio's alleged 'contradictions'. He asked earlier, what did the women say, well, maybe they, in fact, they probably said both, that could have happened in all sorts of way, the fact that the gospels of Mark or John or Luke don't follow a 'paint by numbers' style or fill in all the gaps, doesn't make it untrue. If you think about it, if Matthew Mark Luke and John were exactly the same in every respect somebody would be crying 'fix'! I think it's important too to say that the bible is a book of various genre, we learn about God through history, letter, song, poetry, and so on, and it's important to respect this, so when Psalm 104, for example, says "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved", the writer is making a statement about God, not science. It is to be regretted that science and christianity have become such a battlefield. And on this point of genre or style there's a wonderful structure to the end of the gospel of Mark which means there is no need for a missing ending theory.
In terms of God, Jesus and the gospel, you could pretty much gather my view from an historic confession or creed, something like the Apostles Creed or the Confession of Chalcedon (that Jesus is 'truly God and truly man') or the Westminster Confession. Or this from the Gospel Coalition web site, the "good news is christological, centering on the cross and resurrection: the gospel is not proclaimed if Christ is not proclaimed, and the authentic Christ has not been proclaimed if his death and resurrection are not central".
Maybe this also explains why I keep on hassling Helio about the resurrection accounts!
Complain about this comment
Oh come on, Peter - you are not a thicko; you're a bright guy. How in the name of Ahura Mazda can you *really* come out with such a load of horse droppings? They're true because they are contradictory? Come on! The Robert McCartney murder case was thrown out for *a lot* less than that. Yeah sure, they're not meant to be taken literally; I agree with you there. But how can you then turn round and say that the resurrection itself *really* happened? Or *any* of the supposed historical events? I don't think you can. How can you say that this particular gaggle of writings is The "word of god" - you can't. Oh sure, you can get some very verbose and inventive apologists to come up with a Brilliant Plan like that effort there in the last post. But don't you feel a *teensy* bit embarrassed by such transparent inanity? A *teensy* bit?
And suppose your goddy thing wanted to reveal itself to humankind - why on earth would it choose to use the single most perversible corruptible divergible embellishable memeasbord in the history of the universe, i.e. religion? If there is a core reason why I am not a theist, that is it. If a god made the universe and is interested in my affairs, I find it an *affront* to suggest that it would make such a stupid mistake as to run the old prophets, holy book, special messiah nonsense again. In many ways I am an atheist because I find theism to be the ultimate blasphemy. It has been suggested that atheism is the logical conclusion of reformed thought. I'm inclined to agree.
You're not there yet, but you will be. You're a sound chap, and a bright chap. I think you will work it out, but you'll do it for yourself; it'll not be because I argue you to that position. And you will find it highly congenial :-)
-H
Complain about this comment
H
I'm reminded of Dick Emery, "you are awful, but I like you!"
"They're true because they are contradictory? Come on!"
Well you would have to be pretty thick to pedal that point of view, but, you know, that wasn't actually what I said.
You are right about one thing though, you and I aren't going to argue each other into any position, but I do wonder sometimes if we'd played in the same Christian band, sat in the same pew or walked around the same olive trees in Gethsemane what our conversation would have been.
And I think you realise too, that I've been serious about doubt, as serious as you have been, perhaps even more so. :-)
Complain about this comment
Hello people,
My internet connection isn't fully up and running yet, so I can only make some drive-by posts. So let me make one here. Petermorrow, you quoted Helio and responded by saying
"They're true because they are contradictory? Come on!"
"Well you would have to be pretty thick to pedal that point of view, but, you know, that wasn't actually what I said."
What you said came eerily close to it. You said
"This is why I'm not bothered for example by Helio's alleged 'contradictions'. He asked earlier, what did the women say, well, maybe they, in fact, they probably said both, that could have happened in all sorts of way, the fact that the gospels of Mark or John or Luke don't follow a 'paint by numbers' style or fill in all the gaps, doesn't make it untrue. If you think about it, if Matthew Mark Luke and John were exactly the same in every respect somebody would be crying 'fix'!"
Of course the contradictions (not 'alleged' ones, clear ones) make it at least somewhat untrue. And you do suggest, with your 'fix! It's a conspiracy if it's fully in line with each other' argument that the contradictions make it better for your case. So you have come to the point where you actually try to spin contradictions in the supposedly infallible word of god as being in your favour.
As Helio said, you're better than that, so snap out of that nonsense already, will you?
Complain about this comment
Seeking my my salvation, guys? :-)
I'll have to get back to you later, we're taking the kids to the beach, not that I'm expecting any hint of an acknowledgement that these are not contradictions, not even a teensy bit, but sure.
Complain about this comment
Hope the weather picks up :-) We've similar plans - where is the sun?!?! Keep doubting, folks. Doubt is good. Doubt is healthy. Doubt makes you keep asking questions. And questions stimulate you to try to find out the answers. Which raise more questions. Feel the doubt. Love the doubt.
-H
Complain about this comment
The sun's in Portstewart. Very pleasant here at the moment, once you get to Tobermore you're through the rain.
Complain about this comment
Helio, PK,
I'll start with something which will probably get me into more bother with my fellow christians. The christianity I am familiar with doesn't much seem to like questions, that in my view is a bad thing, apart from anything else it stifles communication, never mind knowledge; like little children we should keep asking, "Why?" And I've asked plenty in church but I've noticed that many people seem to fear them. Perhaps that is because some don't have any answers, perhaps it is because some think their 'authority' is being challenged, I don't really know. This fear of questions however, in (at least some of) the christian church becomes particularly acute when it comes to the issue of doubt; doubt it seems it the troll under the bridge and while I'm perfectly happy to recognise the theological concept that we're not saved by doubt I think the reality of the situation is that doubt, uncertainty and questioning is very much part of the process of faith. So yes you are right, in a way doubt is good, it raises questions, very necessary questions, but it isn't the only thing which does this, nor am I convinced that all of those who extol its virtues are prepared to allow it access to every avenue of their lives. So, while I reject 'blind faith' I am not convinced that the alternative is to cry 'flat contradiction' together with a complete rejection of faith.
And this is where you guys disappoint me. You respond to these resurrection accounts as if the only choice is thicko or spin and verbose meandering. And in doing so you reject out of hand both the universal access to and the complexity of language.
Helio, you said you find it an affront to suggest that my "goddy thing" would reveal himself to mankind through prophets, a book and a person, yea, I agree, it is an affront. It's an affront that God should communicate in the most common of ways. Words are great levelers, they are open to everyone; through something as simple as communication everyone is kept in the loop. Knowledge isn't just for the intelligent, the elite, the 'keepers', it's for everyone, it's dreadfully equal, dreadfully democratic. Messages can be understood in their plainest and simplest form by everyone and yet this can be done is an incredible variety of ways with many layers of meaning which stimulate questions and prod and poke us in the most disconcerting of ways, which is an interesting way to push the concept of doubt if you were so inclined. So I'm sorry, but to cry, 'contradiction' is a cop out.
So the women can't have said "he is risen!" and "Someone has taken his body away!" They can't? Why not? It doesn't need to be 'spun' or explained away, it just needs a basic understanding of people, family and personal grief. Somebody blurts something out. Somebody reports that they were told he is risen. Somebody changes their mind, then they change it back. Somebody panics, 'they've taken the body'. All this is just normality, it's faith and doubt, it's a process. It's called life. And we haven't even thought about the to-ing and fro-ing in a compact mazy ancient city. We're told it as it is. (which is why I mentioned the idea of 'fix', not to argue that they're true because they're contradictory, don't be ridiculous.)
But yes, it's an affront that God should communicate this way. It's an affront to me too. (Maybe it's an affront to Him.) It reminds me that I'm not "better than that", better that the people I think I want to be above, the people who won't answer my questions, those who won't allow me to express my uncertainty. It was an affront to the culture that women, Mark's central characters in his last two scenes (a layer of meaning you'll notice if you don't dismiss it a flat contradictory narrative), were so highly regarded by Jesus, an affront that they should be the ones recorded as witnesses. You'll notice too, that the last two scenes in Mark say the simplest of things, 'dead', 'alive', yet these focal points, these punchlines come in the centre of each of two sections carefully composed in 'ring composition'. A complete form with no missing ending, riddled with meaning and intent, but sure it's only part of a flaming contradiction so no one has to think about what's going on and no one has to ask any questions about the idiots who made it all up.
If you've managed to get this far I can only presume that it's a slow, dull day and you're bored or looking for phrase to hang me with but that's OK. The thing for me is this (and if either of you can mange to acknowledge even this little bit, that would be good), I'm more than happy to acknowledge that doubt can be good, that questions are good, that people get affronted and that a lot of Christendom is peculiar, but I've also pushed that doubt into places people don't often want to go with it, I've taken my Christianity (including things like resurrection accounts) apart and I've taken a good deal of me apart with it, and you know what, I find the concept of 'flat contradiction' too easy, so not like the messy life I live, and it's the kind of thing I wanted to ask questions about.
Remember too, I'm not asking you to believe, that's your business, but 'flat contradiction', give me a break.
On another note Portstewart stayed dry yesterday til about 8:00pm, the North Atlantic wasn't just as bitterly cold as it normally is and the kids 'had a ball'; I hope you guys had as good a day as me.
Peter
Complain about this comment
The key point for the Synoptics is that the resurrection was associated with angelic visitation to the women. For John the emphasis is upon the risen Jesus. He does, like Luke, mention the two angels in the tomb but as an introduction to the appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary.
(Matthew 28:1) The women leave to look at the tomb. Mary Magdelene is prominent in all Gospels.
(John 20:1-2). He focusses upon Mary Magdelene but doesnt mention the others - but they were there. They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and WE do not know where they have laid Him.
(Luke 24:1 + Mark 16:2) They intend to anoint the body with spices.
(Matthew 28:2-3) In the meantime an angel of the Lord comes down and approaching the stone rolls it away and then sits on it. His appearance is supernatural and the Jewish guards are terrified.
(Mark 16:3) The women are trying to think of a way to move the stone as they travel to the tomb.
(Mark 16:4 + Luke 24:2) They arrive and find that the tomb is open and the stone rolled away and the guards gone.
(John 20:1-2) John suggests that upon finding the empty tomb Mary ran off alone and in distress to find Simon-Peter and the other disciple (possibly John) thinking that the body had been stolen. She had left the others there and they had the angelic experience in the tomb.
(Mark 16:5) On entering the tomb they got a huge scare because they found a young man sitting there. The description of his clothes suggests an angel.
(Matthew 28:6) It can be inferred that there is a hiatus in Matthew between the angels appearance to the guards and his speaking to the women. This is borne out by what he says: ... he has risen... A past event. If, as it seems, the resurrection took place at the same time as the angels descent, then when the angel addresses the women it is at some point later than the resurrection/descent event. In his purpose to summarise Matthew simply leaves a gap in his narrative. The angel says come here [deute = movement towards or near the speaker] see the place where he was laid. The place was the ledge inside the tomb used to lay out corpses until decomposition. So they were in the tomb and the angel was near the ledge. He beckoned them towards him - come here... see the place. This is in accord with Mark and Luke.
(Matthew 28:8) And they left the tomb quickly... In order to leave the tomb they first had to be inside it.
(Mark 16:6) They were terrified and he spoke to them.
(Luke 24:4) Luke mentions that two men were in the tomb. To argue discrepancy because only one angel is mentioned in the other Synoptics is another argument from silence and no argument. Each writer emphasised an aspect of the story to suit their purposes and included or omitted according to need and that includes the number and names of the women. We find mention of the two angels again in John 20:12 when Mary returns to the tomb.
(Matthew 28:8; Mark 16:8) The other women make their way back to tell the disciples. On the way they encounter Jesus and he comforts them. Mary Magdelene was not with them because when she spoke to Simon she thought the body had been taken and was distressed.
The angels message.
Mark 16:6-7 (NASB95)
6 And he said to them, Do not be amazed [astounded, overwhelmed, in the context with distress and fear or alarm]; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.
Matthew 28:5-7 (NASB95)
5 The angel said to the women, Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.
Luke 24:5-7 (NASB95)
5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6 He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
Key message in the Synoptics:
1. He is risen.
2. The tomb is empty
3. You will see him in Galilee.
John 20:12-13 (NASB95)
12 and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 And they said to her, Woman, why are you weeping? She said to them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.
Johns purpose in the story of the resurrection and the whole gospel is to emphasise the importance of faith in the Son of God (John 20:31). He chooses the events of key characters to do this and here it is Mary Magdelene. For John she is the focus not the others. So he uses his information to show how Mary comes to faith in the risen Lord.
She arrives first at the tomb and sees it open (See also Mark 16:9). Distressed, she runs back to the disciples, leaving the other women. Peter and probably John ran to the tomb and saw that it was empty. They then left and Mary arrived and was aloneVery early on the Sunday morning the resurrection took place, the earthquake followed, the angel descended and rolled away the stone (Matthew 28:2-4), and the guards of soldiers fled (Matthew 28:11).
2. A little later Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome hurried to the tomb while another group of women followed with the spices. Mary Magdalene reaches the tomb first, sees that it is empty and immediately goes to inform Peter and John (John 20:1ff).
The other Mary and Salome approach and see the angel (Matthew 28:5). Thereafter the other women with Joanna among them come along; they see the two angels and receive the message that Jesus has risen (Luke 24:1ff).
In the meantime Mary Magdalene reaches Peter and John, and they hurry to the tomb (John 20). Mary also follows them again and arrives at the tomb after the others have already departed.
She weeps at the tomb (John 20:2ff) and sees the two angels, who ask her why she is weeping. After this she sees Jesus himself (John 20:14).
In the meantime the other women had gone to the other disciples and told them their experiences. But their words were regarded as idle tales (24:11) until Peter and John confirm them.
When the women were afterwards probably again on their way to the sepulcher, Jesus meets them (according to the true text of Matthew 28:9, which simply reads: "And behold, Jesus met them and said...").
Later in the day Jesus appeared to Peter alone (Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5), toward evening to the men of Emmaus, and a little later to the whole group of disciples, with the exception of Thomas (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-24).
A week later he again appeared to the disciples, including Thomas, who was convinced of the certainty of the resurrection (John 21:1-23).
And during the 40 days before his ascension the Lord also appeared in Galilee to the seven disciples at the Sea (John 21:1-23) (obviously the Galilean disciples, especially after Jesus command that they should go thither, left Jerusalem after a few weeks for Galilee).
He also appeared to the five hundred of his followers in Galilee (as a result of the command of Mark 16:7 they would probably, after the reports concerning Jesus resurrection had been brought to them, have assembled spontaneously in expectation of his appearance). When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15:6, most of the five hundred were still alive as living witnesses of the fact of the resurrection.
From Acts 1:3,4, and from the whole history from the commencement of Christianity, it appears that during the 40 days before his ascension Jesus often appeared to his followers and spoke to them about many things in order to prepare them as builders of his church.
Toward the end of the 40 days he no doubt commanded them to go to Jerusalem and to remain there until the promise of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled.
After their return to Judaea Jesus also appeared to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) and to the apostles (Luke 24:33-53; Acts 1:3-12); and after his ascension he appeared to Paul near Damascus (Acts 9:3-6, 1 Corinthians 15:8) and again in the temple (Acts 22:17-21, 23:11).
Also Stephen saw Jesus after his resurrection (Acts 7:55). Last of all, Jesus also appeared to John(Revelation 1:10-19).
The Gospels are primarily accounts of the apostles preaching about Jesus. They are not complete biographies. So, we are not entitled to demand that they supply us with an exact, detailed, and chronologically connected narrative of all the various events they discuss. The Gospels themselves claim to be selective (John 21:25).
The Gospels profess to give us only a selection of events in the Jesus story (John 21:25) but even so there is an impressive list.
2. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:1-18),
to the two Marys (Matthew 28:1-10),
to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5),
to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31),
to the Eleven and other disciples (Matthew 28:16-20; Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23; 21:1-14; Acts 1:3-9; 1 Corinthians 15:5-6),
to Thomas (John 20:24-29),
to James (1 Corinthians 15:7),
to Joseph and Mathias (Acts 1:22ff),
to five hundred people at once (1 Corinthians 15:6),
to Peter and John together (John 21:15-24),
to Nathanael and some other disciples on the lake (John 21:1-14),
and to Paul (Acts 9:4ff; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8).
Complain about this comment
A.N.WILSON and a return to faith.
By nature a doubting Thomas, I should have distrusted the symptoms when I underwent a conversion experience 20 years ago. Something was happening which was out of character the inner glow of complete certainty, the heady sense of being at one with the great tide of fellow non-believers. For my conversion experience was to atheism. There were several moments of epiphany, actually, but one of the most dramatic occurred in the pulpit of a church.
At St Mary-le-Bow in the City of London, there are two pulpits, and for some decades they have been used for lunchtime dialogues. I had just published a biography of C S Lewis, and the rector of St Mary-le-Bow, Victor Stock, asked me to participate in one such exchange of views.
Memory edits, and perhaps distorts, the highlights of the discussion. Memory says that while Father Stock was asking me about Lewis, I began to testify, denouncing Lewiss muscular defence of religious belief. Much more to my taste, I said, had been the approach of the late Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey, whose biography I had just read.
A young priest had been to see him in great distress, saying that he had lost his faith in God. Ramseys reply was a long silence followed by a repetition of the mantra It doesnt matter, it doesnt matter. He told the priest to continue to worship Jesus in the Sacraments and that faith would return. But! exclaimed Father Stock. That priest was me!
Like many things said by this amusing man, it brought the house down. But something had taken a grip of me, and I was thinking (did I say it out loud?): It bloody well does matter. Just struggling on like Lord Tennyson (and faintly trust the larger hope) is no good at all . . .
I can remember almost yelling that reading C S Lewiss Mere Christianity made me a non-believer not just in Lewiss version of Christianity, but in Christianity itself. On that occasion, I realised that after a lifetime of churchgoing, the whole house of cards had collapsed for me the sense of Gods presence in life, and the notion that there was any kind of God, let alone a merciful God, in this brutal, nasty world. As for Jesus having been the founder of Christianity, this idea seemed perfectly preposterous. In so far as we can discern anything about Jesus from the existing documents, he believed that the world was about to end, as did all the first Christians. So, how could he possibly have intended to start a new religion for Gentiles, let alone established a Church or instituted the Sacraments? It was a nonsense, together with the idea of a personal God, or a loving God in a suffering universe. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.
It was such a relief to discard it all that, for months, I walked on air. At about this time, the Independent on Sunday sent me to interview Dr Billy Graham, who was conducting a mission in Syracuse, New York State, prior to making one of his journeys to England. The pattern of these meetings was always the same. The old matinee idol spoke. The gospel choir sang some suitably affecting ditty, and then the converted made their way down the aisles to commit themselves to the new faith. Part of the glow was, surely, the knowledge that they were now part of a great fellowship of believers.
As a hesitant, doubting, religious man Id never known how they felt. But, as a born-again atheist, I now knew exactly what satisfactions were on offer. For the first time in my 38 years I was at one with my own generation. I had become like one of the Billy Grahamites, only in reverse. If I bumped into Richard Dawkins (an old colleague from Oxford days) or had dinner in Washington with Christopher Hitchens (as I did either on that trip to interview Billy Graham or another), I did not have to feel out on a limb. Hitchens was excited to greet a new convert to his non-creed and put me through a catechism before uncorking some stupendous claret. So absolutely no God? Nope, I was able to say with Moonie-zeal. No future life, nothing out there? No, I obediently replied. At last! I could join in the creed shared by so many (most?) of my intelligent contemporaries in the western world that men and women are purely material beings (whatever that is supposed to mean), that this is all there is (ditto), that God, Jesus and religion are a load of baloney: and worse than that, the cause of much (no, come on, let yourself go), most (why stint yourself go for it, man), all the trouble in the world, from Jerusalem to Belfast, from Washington to Islamabad.
My doubting temperament, however, made me a very unconvincing atheist. And unconvinced. My hilarious Camden Town neighbour Colin Haycraft, the boss of Duckworth and husband of Alice Thomas Ellis, used to say, I do wish Freddie [Ayer] wouldnt go round calling himself an atheist. It implies he takes religion seriously.
This creed that religion can be despatched in a few brisk arguments (outlined in David Humes masterly Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) and then laughed off kept me going for some years. When I found myself wavering, I would return to Hume in order to pull myself together, rather as a Catholic having doubts might return to the shrine of a particular saint to sustain them while the springs of faith ran dry.
But religion, once the glow of conversion had worn off, was not a matter of argument alone. It involves the whole person. Therefore I was drawn, over and over again, to the disconcerting recognition that so very many of the people I had most admired and loved, either in life or in books, had been believers. Reading Louis Fischers Life of Mahatma Gandhi, and following it up with Gandhis own autobiography, The Story of My Experiments With Truth, I found it impossible not to realise that all life, all being, derives from God, as Gandhi gave his life to demonstrate. Of course, there are arguments that might make you doubt the love of God. But a life like Gandhis, which was focused on God so deeply, reminded me of all the human qualities that have to be denied if you embrace the bleak, muddled creed of a materialist atheist. It is a bit like trying to assert that music is an aberration, and that although Bach and Beethoven are very impressive, one is better off without a musical sense. Attractive and amusing as David Hume was, did he confront the complexities of human existence as deeply as his contemporary Samuel Johnson, and did I really find him as interesting?
Watching a whole cluster of friends, and my own mother, die over quite a short space of time convinced me that purely materialist explanations for our mysterious human existence simply wont do on an intellectual level. The phenomenon of language alone should give us pause. A materialist Darwinian was having dinner with me a few years ago and we laughingly alluded to how, as years go by, one forgets names. Eager, as committed Darwinians often are, to testify on any occasion, my friend asserted: It is because when we were simply anthropoid apes, there was no need to distinguish between one another by giving names.
This credal confession struck me as just as superstitious as believing in the historicity of Noahs Ark. More so, really.
Do materialists really think that language just evolved, like finches beaks, or have they simply never thought about the matter rationally? Wheres the evidence? How could it come about that human beings all agreed that particular grunts carried particular connotations? How could it have come about that groups of anthropoid apes developed the amazing morphological complexity of a single sentence, let alone the whole grammatical mystery which has engaged Chomsky and others in our lifetime and linguists for time out of mind? No, the existence of language is one of the many phenomena of which love and music are the two strongest which suggest that human beings are very much more than collections of meat. They convince me that we are spiritual beings, and that the religion of the incarnation, asserting that God made humanity in His image, and continually restores humanity in His image, is simply true. As a working blueprint for life, as a template against which to measure experience, it fits.
For a few years, I resisted the admission that my atheist-conversion experience had been a bit of middle-aged madness. I do not find it easy to articulate thoughts about religion. I remain the sort of person who turns off Thought for the Day when it comes on the radio. I am shy to admit that I have followed the advice given all those years ago by a wise archbishop to a bewildered young man: that moments of unbelief dont matter, that if you return to a practice of the faith, faith will return.
When I think about atheist friends, including my father, they seem to me like people who have no ear for music, or who have never been in love. It is not that (as they believe) they have rumbled the tremendous fraud of religion prophets do that in every generation. Rather, these unbelievers are simply missing out on something that is not difficult to grasp. Perhaps it is too obvious to understand; obvious, as lovers feel it was obvious that they should have come together, or obvious as the final resolution of a fugue.
I havent mentioned morality, but one thing that finally put the tin hat on any aspirations to be an unbeliever was writing a book about the Wagner family and Nazi Germany, and realising how utterly incoherent were Hitlers neo-Darwinian ravings, and how potent was the opposition, much of it from Christians; paid for, not with clear intellectual victory, but in blood. Read Pastor Bonhoeffers book Ethics, and ask yourself what sort of mad world is created by those who think that ethics are a purely human construct. Think of Bonhoeffers serenity before he was hanged, even though he was in love and had everything to look forward to.
My departure from the Faith was like a conversion on the road to Damascus. My return was slow, hesitant, doubting. So it will always be; but I know I shall never make the same mistake again. Gilbert Ryle, with donnish absurdity, called God a category mistake. Yet the real category mistake made by atheists is not about God, but about human beings. Turn to the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge Read the first chapter of Genesis without prejudice and you will be convinced at once . . . The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And then Coleridge adds: And man became a living soul. Materialism will never explain those last words.
A.N. Wilson.
Complain about this comment
Wow,
That is some lazy nonsense right there. Would it not have been simpler to link the page on the new statesmen rather than copy/paste; perhaps even with a little summary?
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism
Or even better how about letting us know some of your own thoughts rather than quote mining others, although a complete copy paste could hardly be called quote mining. Better yet address some of the critiques of your nonsense statements rather than just sweeping them under the pulpit, namely post 203 and earlier.
Got any semi-intelligible responses?
Complain about this comment
I just read the A.N. Wilson he is completely confused.
Complain about this comment
Hello petermorrow,
Let me respond to your extensive post 243 about language to try to talk your way out of the problem of contradictions in the bible. No good. I think I can sense a bit of discomfort in your lengthy response that doesn't offer a very convincing train of reasoning. This suspicion is strengthened by some slightly emotional sounding blurbs when you start saying it's a cop-out, or 'don't be ridiculous' or 'give me a break'. And yes, I will admit being the nasty atheist who enjoys seeing you struggle in wanting to make a serious, convincing post in support of your christian beliefs and (I would say) failing to do so.:D
Why am I so smug and condescending about the bits you wrote about language? The reason is that it is such atrociously unconvincing fluff that it only convinces those who really, really want to be convinced no matter what, regardless of whether they should be convinced. And I think you know that that includes you. You go on a good bit about why language is used. Those points are debatable, but let's not get sidetracked. More important is that in human language too it is possible to be far more accurate than the bible. And it's not as if that is something that was beyond mankind at the time the bible was written. Long before the name Jesus Christ became famous, half a dozen (probably quite a few more, but I'm not going to take the trouble to find out exactly) civilizations had produced works that are sooooh far above the bible tales in terms of consistency, accuracy, etc. Your example of 'someone among the women said this, someone else said that' is a rather good example you bring up, that might well be how it went: just people saying things and others writing them down some time after that. Not some divinely inspired infallible word of god, but the work of people and people who by todays standards were pretty ignorant as well.
So you can talk all you want about why language should be used to convey gods word to try to make the problems of errors and inconsistencies in the bible go away. But let's say we accepted that human language is the way to do it, then there are even plenty of little childrens stories that easily do better than the bible within the confines of human language. So go on, voice your sense of frustration about Helio nailing you on the inconsistencies in what you called the 'infallible word of god (post 236)'. If you want to talk your way out of that then post 243 doesn't help. If you want to carry on debating this one then please tell why the infallible word of god does even less well than many little childrens stories. If we accept that they are just somewhat sloppy, none-too-well informed, human creations then it makes perfect sense. From your point of view you are in tons and tons of trouble over any errors or contradictions that needn't have been in there at all.
And given that you had made an extensive, serious effort to make your point, the failure to do so (at least that is how I read your post 243, others may give different appraisals) would not only not support your case, but maybe count a little against it. If you gave it a good try, then the prospects after that would likely be lower than if you hadn't really tried yet.
Complain about this comment
Peter, hi (you nasty atheist you!)
So you disagree with me? I'd never have guessed :-)
I am interested in this though, you said, "Your example of 'someone among the women said this, someone else said that' is a rather good example you bring up, that might well be how it went"
Now I know that that (or anything else I say) doesn't prove that any of this is 'God's word', I can't prove that, you can't disprove it, we all know that already. You're not convinced, maybe you even dislike it, (actually you find it "atrociously unconvincing fluff"), I know, that's OK, I'm not trying to convince you, I'm actually not that disrespectful of you, but when you say, "that might well be how it went", I say yea, that might well be how it went, and it need not mean "hopelessly contradictory."
And no need to think I feel any discomfort or frustration, (nor am I bothered about being associated with people you think are "pretty ignorant") I don't feel discomforted at all; you're not a Christian, I am, you think I believe in sky pixies and fairy stories, poor ones at that, we know that already too, but do I need to be convinced, goodness, you really don't know me at all and have overlooked the reality that sometimes I wish, with a passion, that I didn't believe, that it wasn't true. The interesting thing Peter, is, that on this psychological point, you misread me as much as OT does.
Complain about this comment
Post 248
Peter_Klaver said, Let me respond...
- ... in human language too it is possible to be far more accurate than the bible. What kind of argument is this? Acurate about what?
- ... half a dozen civilizations had produced works that are sooooh far above the bible tales in terms of consistency, accuracy, etc. Empty words, no substantiation! ....sooooh? How childish. If I hadn't seen a photo of you on your uni website showing that you are getting on a bit I would have thought a teenager had written here.
- I don't think you understand what many Christians mean by divine inspiration when it comes to the Bible. You also mix up infallible with your understanding of accuracy.
- ... but the work of people and people who by todays standards were pretty ignorant as well. Same old argument that 21 C people are more intelligent than ancient peoples. It is just not true.
- ... If you want to carry on debating this one.... But you are not saying anything substantial in response other than being rude to people. But then, this seems to be the way of responding by some on this blog.
Geneboy criticises me for not posting a link with a summary but has to be rude in the process. Quote mining. Another childish expression.
....Better yet address some of the critiques of your nonsense statements rather than just sweeping them under the pulpit, namely post 203 and earlier.
203
(1) It is not how you wave it, it is how you use it...
(2) I am reading the papers on chicken evolution etc (from science direct etc...) and will get back on that, along with common ancestor points.
(3) As far as I am aware, kinds have not been placed into some sort of neat phylogeny by creation researchers. As for the bronze age, well that's another moot point in terms of Egyptian chronology.
(4) I am not into scoffing at the fossil record, only trying to interpret it.
(5) I have not scoffed at radiometric dating only questioned its assumptions.
(6) No, no scoffing at molecular data, only questions, and yes, based upon my biblical world view.
(7) Did you wake up with the word scoff on your mind that day?
(8) ... biology has come a long way since Darwin... I know. Why do we persist with his ideas?
(9) ... the modern world has a better understanding of the modern world... It does, but it can only assume things about the ancient world.
(10) ... Evolutionary biology.... a religion... Of course not, but the underlying philosophy of minute changes over a vast timescale by natural mechanisms alone is faith (or assumption) based. The evidence cannot be tested only interpreted.
(11) ... Perhaps it is because you... fail to see the influence of your omnipotent diety on the natural world? Perhaps it is because the contributions science has made to society are tangible in comparison? What on Earth are you talking about? You start with the influence of God on the natural world and then talk about the contribution of science to (human) society. How does the first statement relate to the next?
(12) ...Dont you think its about time you realised that with a bit of free and rational thought... It is called free will. Human creation standing up on their OWN two feet has caused our problems - you will be as God (Gen 3). You and I cannot be as God because we are frail, finite and foolish (Your comment 206).
Complain about this comment
FP, plagiarism is theft. In particular, you have plagiarised some very rubbish material.
PeterM, the problem is this: the ONLY evidence you have for the resurrection ever having "happened" is the text in the New Testament. We have already agreed that these contradict each other; you do not see the contradictions as DISPROVING the event, but that is disingenuous, and at best immaterial.
You said:
Helio, you said you find it an affront to suggest that my "goddy thing" would reveal himself to mankind through prophets, a book and a person, yea, I agree, it is an affront. It's an affront that God should communicate in the most common of ways. Words are great levelers, they are open to everyone; through something as simple as communication everyone is kept in the loop. Knowledge isn't just for the intelligent, the elite, the 'keepers', it's for everyone, it's dreadfully equal, dreadfully democratic.
But that is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I have no problem with gods being democratic - in religion they are anything BUT!! You have to accept what is written by some punter in some book. IF there is a god, it KNOWS that religion is pervertible, corruptible, contemptible, massively error-prone. It KNOWS that people fight wars over this nonsense. It KNOWS that if it does issue a revelation (in either a person or a book or indeed whatever), it will be mashed up into some hideous pants by very ANTI-democratic people, and what will come out the end of that process is similar to what comes out the end of a rather unwell herbivore.
My point is this: there is no quality control. There CANNOT be any quality control. The quality has inevitably suffered (as the profusion of heretics shows, yeah?), so THIS process (i.e. RELIGION, not the "democratic" levelling itself to our situation) cannot be the system that any real god would have chosen in order to communicate with mankind. Similarly, an event like the resurrection CANNOT be the lynchpin for "saving" us from our "sins" or anything like that.
THAT is the affront. If Christianity is "true", god is a spoilt vindictive perverse idiot.
There's no escape from that.
Complain about this comment
Helio
First up I apologize for misrepresenting you, saying however in my defense that it certainly wasn't intentional, I went off in one direction with the idea of verbal revelation, you in another. I'll come back to the religion thing in a minute.
You have said though in that last post that, "We have already agreed that these contradict each other", mmmm no we haven't. You have said that the accounts contradict one another and what I have done is point out that it is perfectly possible, by highlighting what people do, that they can have happened without contradiction. It is on the point of 'what people do' that I think there is some agreement.
Back to the religion thing. Again I suspect there is some agreement between us, there's a lot of bad, really bad, in religion. A lot of very undemocratic people, a lot of very mean and nasty people are bombing about (quite literally) telling others what to do, but that is kind of the opposite of love your enemy (which is basically what the law and the prophets boil down to) and which is the quality control right there. It's one of the reasons I keep banging on about the problems of a Christian subculture and to be specific there are many deep stains on the history of Christianity never mind other religions.
But it's not about 'exclusion' it's about 'embrace'; isn't that the "Christian" bit of your atheism you want to hold on to?
Complain about this comment
Peter, kinda. The point that I *think* you are starting to get is that whatever *really* happens, people are more than capable of making up lots of stories about it, and before long, it is not possible to recover the precise original events. Yes, it is theoretically possible that a resurrection could have happened, and people's jumbled recollections of that could have led to the stories we have now. However I would suggest that your basis for preferring *that* over my scenario is shaky at best, and really does mean that we are dealing with flawed and purely human hearsay - nothing more.
The problem with religion is not just the *people* - it is the *system*. That is a key issue here. Religion itself as a category. You can't use a banana to polevault to the moon. You can't use religion to communicate with a god. There's no point in even trying - it's not going to work. Wrong toolio for the jobbio. God knows this. Getting silly *humans* to realise this is a bit trickier for some reason.
Complain about this comment
H
I'm nipping into town cos I'm in the middle of painting the hall and I need some more stuff. Yes, there's a problem with religion, all sorts of problems, I said that already, and mentioned an alternative; would it be too much to ask that you tell me what you think of that, or the last section of Mark, or my honestly about faith and doubt or your understanding of the words 'grace', "belief", *believing*, and 'hard scepticism', which we talked about on the Codex thread, it's just that I don't know what your specific thoughts are.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Peter - by "alternative", what were you referring to?
As far as "grace" is concerned, if that's what we're dealing with, then belief or conformance to a particular creed is superfluous - religion and "faith" are just "works".
If "belief" is something stronger than a provisional or operational acceptance within certain parameters, then it is abhorrent.
My specific thoughts are that the only honest and properly respectful position to adopt is one of atheism. If you're faced with having to pick the One True Religion out of a pool of pants, I would have thought that Helio's Wager would mandate that you declare the game a farce, and walk out of the casino.
Complain about this comment
Plagiarism?? What plagiarism?
Complain about this comment
Helio
The alternative to a corruptible, power grabbing, money grabbing, exploitive system such as religion is, 'love your enemy'. Much under used toolio for much needed jobbio! No need to polevault to the moon either.
As far as I'm concerned, grace is what we're dealing with, the creed is ultimately an explanation of what grace is and faith the recognition of that; all of it is seen in who Jesus is and what he did, and, following from that, what Christians do, and that brings us back to loving enemies. And you're right, systems turn that into 'works'.
And to be honest, that doesn't sound like 'a pool of pants' to me.
Complain about this comment
FP, you are cutting and pasting from silly websites. Cut & pasted pants is still pants. That's plagiarism - passing off someone else's work as your own. Next time if you want to use someone else's material, cite your sources.
Peter, you are still not quite getting it. It's ALL corruptible. If you are saying that it all boils down to "love your enemy", well, I'm not quite sure what we do about that - I don't have any enemies. There are lots of people with whom I disagree for sure, but no-one that I want to kill or that I hate or anything like that. Not even someone like Gillian McKeith or Osama Bin Laden. I would like a pleasant world where we could all get along.
Now, if what you say is correct (and it's not, but we'll run with it for now), what in addition am I missing out on? Oh yeah - I need to accept Jesus as my lord and saviour and believe silly things about him rising from the dead and nonsense like that. I cannot actually do that - that is RELIGION. That is this awful "faith" thing again. To do that would require me to seriously reconfigure my brain, and regard falsehood as truth. That would require a LOT of effort on my part - and now we are back to salvation through "works", AND via a RELIGION.
Despite your valiant attempt to rescue Christianity from the Pool o' Pants, the elastic is too strong, and PING! - back it shoots into panpantdom.
So, what do you suggest the honest Christian Atheist should *do* with the resurrection myth?
Complain about this comment
H
Cite my sources - me! Be specific. What is the alleged plagiarism? If its the cut and paste Wilson article, I stated from the outset that it was Wilson. Ok, in my haste I omitted the link but I didn't try to pass that off as my work.
If you are referring to the previous article to it - that's my research and work. Point me to the alleged 'stolen' article.
Pants? How infantile. Dialogue should at least be mature. First Geneboy, now you. Get a grip.
By the way, in a mainline understanding of both terms Christian and atheist are mutually exclusive. You are, of course, entitled to interpret the phrase as you wish.
As to what an honest Christian atheist should do with the resurrection, as you would call it, myth. Well, that's up to you but... tick tock, tick tock, tick....stop - phew!.... Oh no!!!!! But then, I would say that wouldn't I? It's not that you cannot accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour, for some inner reason, you refuse to do it and hide away behind any argument wall you can construct. Maybe that same resurrection figure is saying to you, Why do you kick against the goads? If you actually knew him and ignored religion in its many horrible manifestations you wouldn't have a doubt in the world.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Seeing as(s) we're talking about pants, I'll give you the bottom line. :-)
What do I suggest the honest Christian Atheist should *do* with the resurrection myth?
Well, when I confronted myself with that question, as I have done, I concluded that I'd either have to drop the pants, no, sorry, drop the 'Christian' or drop the 'Atheist'.
If I were to be an atheist I was hard pressed to see the point of Christendom (any of it), if I were to be a Christian I'd have to run with the enemy. (God that is)
In other words, it's PING or PONG, but not both.
Oh and BTW, "accept Jesus as (your) Lord and Saviour"? (the capital 'L' and 'S' are important, don't you think) Genie mac, you use the phrase as if you know what it means, I always found those one line wonders overrated.
Complain about this comment
Hello petermorrow,
Sorry that my spotty internet access keeps me several iterations behind the curve in this discussion. You wrote
"Now I know that that (or anything else I say) doesn't prove that any of this is 'God's word', I can't prove that, you can't disprove it, we all know that already."
Indeed we do. But I sure hope that the "I can't prove that, you can't disprove it" bit doesn't mean that you are suggesting that our views are on an equal footing, that that makes them equally valid? Surely, you have read Bertrand Russells teapot analogy?
"but when you say, "that might well be how it went", I say yea, that might well be how it went, and it need not mean "hopelessly contradictory.""
"Hopelessly" is an unquantified and subjective term. But if it did go the way you hypothesized, then it most definitely is contradictory, the contradictions not lying in later mis-translation or willful distortion of the writings, but in people saying things contradictory things and those being committed to paper (or was it parchment at the time?). Which doesn't take away that it still doesn't add up.
You said I misread you and that you had at times tried hard not to believe. I can't see the inside of your mind, so I can't argue against what you say very well. But I will maintain an extensive dose of skepticism. Getting over Catholicism was not something that happened overnight for me, it involved trying to push away the doubts for a good while, trying to reassure myself that my beliefs were actually very fine, etc. I may have made myself believe a number of times that I had considered my doubts carefully and that there was nothing substantial behind them. I may have said things very similar to you. It's part of the transition. At least it was for me. Stay on the blog for a long time, and we might find out in a couple of years if it was the same for you.
Complain about this comment
FirePrior, you addressed 5 points to me in post 250. Let me answer them here.
"in human language too it is possible to be far more accurate than the bible. What kind of argument is this?"
Very simple. Petermorrow was discussing how and why language is used to convey 'gods word', and how that would explain contradictions. Which seems like a very poor excuse to me, as language allows for ideas to be conveyed far better than the bible does. Which part of it don't you understand?
"half a dozen civilizations had produced works that are sooooh far above the bible tales in terms of consistency, accuracy, etc. Empty words, no substantiation!"
Technically you can score a little point here, I didn't offer substantiation. Because I thought it would have been obvious to anyone not totally ignorant of history. But read something about the astronomical record kept by the Chinese, various fields of science explored by the ancient Greeks (much of it we still haven't found any fault in and is used unchanged today) etc and you would find out that even long ago people did a far better job than the authors of your precious Holy Babble.
"I don't think you understand what many Christians mean by divine inspiration when it comes to the Bible. You also mix up infallible with your understanding of accuracy."
Classic christian redefining of terms when you can't reason your way out of it . So accurate or error-free doesn't automatically have to be part of something that is infallible now, right?
Let's suppose some top economists visit Gordon Brown and tell him they have a new economic plan to cure the economy within 3 months. The PM asks how sure they are about their plan. They said it's infallible. So Brown puts it into action but three months later he discovers that things got much worse and the UK is now in a worse position than Iceland. He asks the economists
"You said your plan was infallible??!!"
"Sure, it was, it still is."
"But it turned out to be garbage! None of what you said came true, it was as far off the mark as could be!"
"Hey, we said it was infallible, we never said it was anything accurate or correct."
Do you think Brown would be satisfied with that naswer?
"Same old argument that 21 C people are more intelligent than ancient peoples. It is just not true."
It isn't, and I didn't say so, you are distorting what I said. People then might not have been anything inherently less smart then now, but they were ignorant of so much we have learned since then. You are mixing up intelligent thinking and knowledge to set up a straw man that I never put into my post.
"But you are not saying anything substantial in response other than being rude to people. But then, this seems to be the way of responding by some on this blog."
More classic christian excuse making. When out unable to answer with arguments, complain about the tone. Duh.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter
I began to read you post 262 to Fireprior and got as far as, "Petermorrow was discussing how and why language is used to convey 'gods word', and how that would explain contradictions. "
Peter, if you would actually try to engage with what I said we might have something approaching a conversation, as it is, this blog, all too often, as on the 'moon' thread for example, degenerates into petty point scoring, it's just tiresome.
'Winning' arguments is so passé, but obviously in hoping (however intensely people disagree) for some shared understanding my expectations were hopelessly unrealistic.
Complain about this comment
Hi PeterK
It seems I owe you an apology. A big one!
In accessing this thread earlier I scrolled straight to the bottom and only back up as far as 262. I completely missed 261, and feel rather silly. I shall read it again with more care and come back later, for now, I shall hide my face and whisper again, apologies.
Peter
Complain about this comment
Hello petermorrow,
Perhaps you would care to elaborate where your complaining in post 263 comes from?! The third paragraph and onward in your post 243 read exactly like what you quoted from me in post 262, you saying how wonderful an instrument language is, how contradictions could have appeared in them. Not, btw, showing in any way why that would make the bible the infallible word of god (you actually said so yourself in post 249). So what's the crying about point scoring then? I can't find any post in this thread where you have given any good explanation for the (needless) contradictions in the bible. Perhaps you would care to address that? And if you have complaints about me not reading your posts then fine, but please elaborate rather than just saying that I'm merely point scoring.
I read your posts carefully before replying to them or referring to them when replying to others. Have you considered the possibility that the reason I'm not reading them as you would like me to read them, is that they are not convincing people of the things you want to covey in them?
Complain about this comment
FP, forgive me, but jocular infantilisms are really all that is appropriate for your posts thus far. Maybe when you show that you are up for being taken seriously, we can adopt a more po-faced and less blog-oriented form of discourse. Are you John Ankerberg?
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
(PeterM - head over here: http://www.johnankerberg.com - bring your umbrella)
That is where you cut and pasted your post from. If you are saying that you are indeed the author of that highly contrived hypothesis, then I most assuredly do take back any accusation of plagiarism, and instead declare you a comedian of some considerable talent.
I would simply point out that there is a difference between "explaining" and "explaining away". Perhaps PeterM can enlighten you as to why Ankerberg's notions don't get off the ground.
Complain about this comment
Peter
I hope my apology in post 264, goes some why to explaining my reasons for complaint, I jumped to the conclusion that you hadn't read my more recent posts and I was wrong, sorry, I still feel a little embarrassed.
The reason I went down the route of language was related to Helio's comment about 'affront'. I misunderstood him and he pointed this out to me saying, "that is a complete misrepresentation of what I said." I was speaking of the accessibility of language, I apologised to Helio and said, "I went off in one direction with the idea of verbal revelation, you in another." This is all in 251, 252.
I hope this clears up my unwarranted complaint against you and will allow us to return to your thoughts in post 261.
Complain about this comment
PK
...language allows for ideas to be conveyed far better than the bible does...
This sentence does not make sense. The Bible contains language used to convey a variety of ideas fit for purpose. It does not contain detailed astronomical/astrological records or Greek scientific theories, or indeed Egyptian medical procedures because that is not the purpose of the biblical records. The primary purpose is theological and soteriological but set for the most part within an historical context.
I said - I don't think you understand what many Christians mean by divine inspiration when it comes to the Bible. You also mix up infallible with your understanding of accuracy.
I don't see redefining of anything here only your assumptions. But then, you are fond of those, assumptions I mean, which you then take to be fact.
- Which part of it don't you understand?
- Because I thought it would have been obvious to anyone not totally ignorant of history.
- when you can't reason your way out of it .
- duh
Lots of empty replies, littered with sniping comments based upon ignorance. Let the hot air continue...
Complain about this comment
Helio
Who's John Ankerberg?
Anything to do with Carlsberg?
Complain about this comment
@Fireprior,
I think the criticism is valid. No one should be copy/pasting rote fashion from other sources. The format here appears to be one of debate, to a certain extent. Don't you agree that it is an extremely lazy way to form a cogent argument? Wouldn't it be far superior to lift the most suitable pieces, and summarise?
Regarding this comment though "Of course not, but the underlying philosophy of minute changes over a vast timescale by natural mechanisms alone is faith (or assumption) based. The evidence cannot be tested only interpreted." I would strongly disagree with your statement. This interpretation of the scientific method renders moot almost every form of investigation we perform today. You are placing an artificially high standard of proof, namely that one has to physically observe the phenomena. All of the fundamental processes of evolution can be readily observed; genetic drift, mutation, natural selection, gene-flow; speciation events have been observed through transitional fossils, ring species and artificial selection experiments; Multiple strands of investigation have led to an ancient universe with a less ancient lineage of life. We don't argue evolution based on religious faith in the interpretations, but rather what is the most parsimonious and logical. By your standards of scientific proof I could argue that atomic theory and chemical reactions requires faith; likewise for the theories of nuclear fusion and fission; likewise for the sun's fusion reaction; likewise for quantum theory and the particle nature of light; and so on and so forth. None can be readily observed, but rather have to be interpreted. It is interesting that the scientific models constructed tend towards a parsimonious description of nature even though they are "faith" based, right?
Regarding creationist attempts to classify "kinds". You are right there is no standard by which creationists act, and I would argue that it is to their detriment. The failed 21st century pseudoscience of baraminology was in many ways the best attempt, and it had less descriptive power than Aristotles attempts in 350 BC. Your indiscriminate use of the word "kind" with no definite meaning outside "bring forth the living creature after its kind" dies miserably on its arse. When presented with evidences of speciation such as the Gull complex of the Northern hemisphere; ensatina salamanders and greenish warblers you can only admit that this definition is horribly inaccurate. Normally we get the follow up statement of "you will never see a dog give birth to a fish" from a creationist, when presented with evidence of speciation at work; but then we aren't saying that this is how it happens, this statement seems to be a fall back position to get a cheap cheer from supporters of YEC/ID. Cladistics which in recent years has incorporated molecular phylogenetics could quite easily have supported the creationist stance, demonstrating logical linkage between the larger taxonomic groupings; yet it didn't. It should be noted that molecular phylogenetics doesn't rely entirely on the construction of "trees" for evidentiary support; there are a wealth of analytical procedures ranging from mismatch distributions to haplotype networks.
I really fail so see how "you" can interpret the data and inference we are receiving in a substantially different way; I've tried many times but failed miserably.
One final point. Why Darwin? Well the same could be said for Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Aristotle, Hubble and Bacon to name but a few. Why remember any scientist? except for their contribution to the body of knowledge that we have. Those that make a massive contribution are attributed appropriately. I could quite confidently state that I believe that Nei, Kimura, Meyr, Fisher, Wright, Haldane have had an equally large impact on modern evolutionary biology, but those names are hardly layman friendly to the public.
Present creationism as a logical argument supported by the data and we can talk; resort to exclusively picking holes in others work and we really have no common ground. The internal checks and measures of science publication may not be perfect, but they certainly are strong enough to prove or disprove evolution by themselves. Unless of course you are inferring that every evolutionary biology researcher over the last 150 years has been operating under some form of shared delusion?
Complain about this comment
FP, "fit for purpose" - that is indeed the point. I (and PeterK) would argue that the bible is manifestly NOT fit for purpose, if that purpose is considered to be a record of divine revelation to humans. It is deficient in very very many ways - as you have observed, it is not fit for purpose as a scientific text; it is not fit for purpose even as a historical text, without tortuous close-reading and ad hoc fixes after the fact. The Genesis narratives, for example, do not accurately reflect history, and similar deficiencies run through the rest of the text.
This is not to denigrate the biblical corpus - they are what they are. If we insist that they contain the "word of god", then we are doing it (and our brains) a serious injustice.
This is one reason why I am a Christian Atheist. I have too much respect for any god that might conceivably exist to sully it by suggesting that the bible is anything other than a human creation. but human creations have their uses (and abuses). Truth is much more important.
Complain about this comment
Peter, I can't sort out Ankerberg's phylogenetic relationships, but he does have an absolutely *glorious* domain name: http://www.ankerberg.com - you simply could *not* make that up!
We're livin' in the end times, people. Repent or something, quick!
Complain about this comment
Helio
Yea, Carlsberg doesn't do domain names, but if they did, www.ankerberg would probably be the best domain name in the world!
But back to the resurrection accounts.
Peter, post 261,
"But if it did go the way you hypothesized, then it most definitely is contradictory, the contradictions not lying in later mis-translation or willful distortion of the writings, but in people saying things contradictory things'
But Peter, I've already suggested this as the way I read it. I have no problem in accepting that different things were said and that these different things were recorded, this is what happens in real life and... what happens in faith. Faith, like your 'getting over Catholicism' isn't something which happens overnight. It's push and pull, or transition, as you said. It happens like this because we are human beings; Christian faith is a process like anything else, we read, we learn, we communicate, we doubt, we adjust. It's not static, it's dynamic, it has implications, it has to do with me, and I'm a human being. I have absolutely no problem with the record that Mary assumed, paniced, worried, concluded, said (whatever) that the body had been taken and then upon reflection, over time, and for all sorts of reasons, like other people, saw things differently. This is straightforward humanity, as Helio keeps saying, people do these kinds of things. Whether or nor any of us reach the same conclusion as a person called Mary is a different matter, I'm not arguing it proves Jesus was/is God, just that these resurrection accounts can be read without assuming a contradiction which questions their reliability. It is that 'flatly contrary' point, (Helio's comment in 229) that I am answering, and I say again, there is nothing about the women's comments which makes these reports 'flatly contrary'. Rather, they complement one another.
Complain about this comment
Hello petermorrow,
I typed my post 265 when your post 264 hadn't appeared yet. I'm off to sleep soon (I'm in a different time zone to you now), but will catch up with your post and others in this thread tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
PeterM, once again, I know exactly what you're saying, but what you are pitching at is merely an excuse to keep on believing, despite the admittedly flawed nature of the surviving accounts. You have already made up your mind that the R "happened", and are trying to explain away the defects in order to keep on believing. There is another way - the intellectually honest way. Step back. Assume nothing. Look at the accounts as if they were just ancient stories written years after the events they purport to describe. Ask yourself if you *really* can conclude from these that the R really happened, as opposed to Mary's alleged first thoughts, and indeed the most common explanation of the empty tomb at the time. Namely, someone unknown to the disciples took Jesus's body away from the temporary tomb for a private burial in Galilee (as the man in the tomb likely said).
In all, a resurrection is the *least* likely explanation for these stories.
Complain about this comment
Well Helio,
In a tight spot like this there is only one person to call on, Dick Dastardly!
Helio: It's "merely an excuse to keep on believing"
Dick: What'd he say? What'd he say?
Helio: It's "merely an excuse to keep on believing"
Dick: Drat! And Double Drat!
Helio: It's "merely an excuse to keep on believing"
Dick: Muttley! Doooooo sooomethiiiiiinnnggg!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZm47SrmuwM&feature=related
Complain about this comment
On the other point, are you still holding to the assertion that the women's comments make the reports, 'flatly contrary'?
Complain about this comment
Peter, shnafnashnafna! LOL :-)
What I keep harping on about is that you are indulging repeatedly in the postiest hociest reasoning, and there are only so many ways to point that out. The stories around the women most certainly are flatly contradictory between Mark and John (as I've mentioned, Matthew and Luke are irrelevant, apart from being prima facie evidence of embellishment and spin). Read them again.
You are right that these are HUMAN stories, told by people who were attempting to weave together confused rumours and hearsay that they had received, into what they felt might be a coherent story. Over the decades since the death of Jesus, several rumours and "urban myths" had sprouted up, such as the R2E story, or the pentecost story, and had solidified with the re-telling. This sort of thing happens very frequently. The gospellers had no way of checking the actual facts (nor do they cite their sources, which makes Luke a considerably worse historian than Herodotus, for example, who at least made *some* effort).
So stand back and look at the evidence coolly and calmly, and stop being a poster boy for post hoc reasoning! :-)
[you are awful, but I like you]
-H
Complain about this comment
Behind the curve, as usual lately,
petermorrow, I could simply second Helios post 275 as my answer to your post 273. Moving the time and place and the way where the error creeps in doesn't make the error go away. So that doesn't do anything to take away the fact that the bible ranks below various little childrens stories that are more internally consistent etc. Not something to have faith in or hold up as the infallible word of god. It would seem to me too that that is an attempt on your part to rationalize the unrationalizable. To me the more reasonable thing to do would be to drop it.
I won't say 'just drop it'. I know it was not that easy for me. And since you have lived with these ideas for far more years than me (and if I remember correctly, your job was in the area too, right?) I imagine it would be far harder still for you. But still overwhelmingly worth it anyway.
Complain about this comment
Ah, yes, post hoc reasoning. Helio, you mean like when Jonathan Edwards, the trinity jumper, not the American Revivalist, took a tin of sardines into the Olympic Stadium and then won the gold medal? :-)
I'm more than happy to stick with the human side of things when speaking with you, so let's try this again, at a purely human level, on the record of what the people did, said, saw, described, are you still telling me that the two reports you highlighted necessitate a flat contradiction. It can't be anything else? Any explanation is an attempt to rationalize, to explain away, to keep on believing?
And as you bring Mark up again in order to make this point, have you had any thoughts on the composition of the final two scenes. Any chance that you might take me through the construction, the emphasis, the parallels, the focal point, as you read it, given that you hold to a missing ending, contradictory view?
(Peter, welcome, I've just read your post 279, sorry again about yesterdays mishap, I'm a dweeb, what can I say! What I've already said will cover your thoughts too.)
Guys you're getting dreadfully close to saying that you won't accept the veracity of my descriptions of personal doubt unless or until I do a Jonny E, or even that you think I'm a tad delusional, or intellectually dishonest perhaps. Is there a hint of attempted persuasion coming through in what you're writing, do you sense me on the brink of defaithing (!)
You know, I have said over and over that I respect honest doubt, do you guys think there is there any room for honest faith?
And I'm a poster boy, golly, don't tell my wife.
And just to clarify Peter, nope, not in the 'god' line of business, sorry.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Peter
This is basically coming down (as it always would) to our respective views on the accounts. I've been told that they are flatly contradictory, but don't see it that way and explained why. The response to this is that I'm merely explaining away contradictions! This, even though I have acknowledged the different comments from Mary and the women and set them in a context, the context of the text, which is what we do with words (and I'm still waiting for Helio's bible study on the last section of Mark!) and the context of grief, among other things. All that I can see you guys have done is say, "He is risen", "Someone has stolen the body" and say see, see, contradiction, contradiction, say no more, say no more! We're no further on, you think contradiction, I don't, but honestly I'm more than comfortable with my position. As to the rest of your thoughts on my psychology, well I'll reflect on what you have said, but all I'm really saying is that I've always tried to be honest with me, that's as important as anything.
As to RE teachers, I only know of one on here, Graham.
And you don't really think there is such a thing a 'honest faith', do you. :-)
Best wishes
Peter
Complain about this comment
Peter, yes, Mark's gospel appears to have been carefully crafted. To be honest, I see that as a *problem* if it purports to be history, but never mind. The accounts (Mark and John) are contradictory - flatly - Ankerboy has had a go at reconciling them, but you'll agree that this is less than satisfactory. The problem is quite simple - to reconcile them you have to adopt the ridiculous position whereby they are telling parallel stories; the problem is that the stories cross at several points, and you end up with ridiculous post hoc epicycles to get around these problems.
That is NOT true to the bible itself (perhaps the ultimate heresy - p1551ng on your sources!), nor is it true to simple common sense. As you have observed, these are confused narratives, but they are not complex narratives. They are very straightforward.
When we are trying to explain things, we are trying to explain the STORIES. That is easy to do. People get things wrong all the time. What YOU are trying to do is infer a pretty spectacular, jaw-dropping, exceptional, miraculous historical event underlying these flawed and purely human stories, and whatever way you twist it, you are not entitled to do that. Your evidence is insufficient to make your case.
But you know this, don't you? :-)
Complain about this comment
Helio
"What YOU are trying to do is infer a pretty spectacular, jaw-dropping, exceptional, miraculous historical event underlying these flawed and purely human stories."
Actually, whatever I think of what is or what isn't 'God's Word', in terms of this discussion what I said was, "I'm more than happy to stick with the human side of things when speaking with you", but you just can't shift from flat contradiction, can you.
Mark is "carefully crafted" actually, I said, 'composition', 'ring composition'. But you're just dismissing again, sorry.
Maybe having a go at dealing with the interpretation of Mark, now that you recognise there is no need for a missing ending theory, would be a useful step to take, should be easy to take apart if it's so flawed.
Complain about this comment
The resurrection accounts
Synoptics - focus upon the women and angelic visitation.
John - focus is upon the risen Lord.
Events:
The women travel to the tomb (Matthew 28:1) to carry out the burial traditions (Mark 16:2 and Luke 24:1). In the meantime an angel appears to the Jewish guards at the tomb and they were terrified and ran to the city (Matthew 28:2-3). The women were trying work out how to move away the large tomb stone from the entrance (Mark 16:3) but find that it had already been moved (Mark 16:4 and Luke 24:2). John focuses upon Marys reaction and when she saw that the body was gone she ran off alone to find the other disciples and told them that she thought the body had been taken (John 20:1-2). The others entered the tomb and were confronted with an angel (Mark 16:5). Luke mentions another angel, as does John (Luke 24:4 and John 20:12). The women are told three basic things (1) The tomb is empty. (2) Jesus is risen from the dead. (3) He will go to Galilee. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that they were terrified and left the tomb. On their way to tell the disciples Jesus met them and the Galilee message is reiterated (Matthew 28:10).
Mary Magdalene, who was not with the others, reached Peter and told him about the empty tomb and the fear that his body had been taken (John 20) and he and another disciple ran to the tomb to see for themselves and then went back leaving Mary there crying (John 20:11). The two angels who had spoken to the other women earlier then appeared to Mary (John 20:12). She still didnt understand what had happened (John 20:13). She turned from the tomb and saw someone standing there. Her tears had clouded her eyes because it was only when the person spoke her name that she realised it was Jesus himself (John 20:16). Like the other women she was instructed to go to the disciples and tell them of the resurrection. Initially the disciples did not believe the women (Luke 24:10 and 11) but Jesus also appeared to them and many more before and after the ascension.
The gospels themselves do not claim to be biographies or a history. They are selective accounts of what the apostles taught and preached about Jesus, using elements from his life, teaching and ministry (John 21:25). But more important, they all focus upon the death of Jesus as a sacrifice for humanitys sin and his resurrection as a victory over death. But they are set in an historical and factual context.
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)
Take it or leave it.
Complain about this comment