OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[lvbuckeye]

wowowowowow... i just came across a compelling argument that the trinity is false doctrine... that certainly shakes things up...

edit: hey, Max. are the Ten Commandments part of the Creation fable?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

talk about the Lord working in mysterious ways! i just stumbled upon a verse that seems strangely appropriate to the conversation:
II Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Yes, yes. To me, this verse says there will be a time when people will refuse to accept the reality around them, say ... evolution... (sound doctrine), but after their own lusts will give themselves make believe "Scientists" (heaping teachers) who are unscrupulous (itching ears), but the people will turn their ears away from reality (truth) and accept fables (creationism, being one example).

 

[lvbuckeye]

reality around them? really?

perhaps you could point out an example of evolution occurring around us right now? don't give me that 'it happens too slow to observe it' crap, either. you said it's reality around us, so back it up. i want a hard example of direct observation.

BTW, why are there "endangered species?" if they're so unfit as to be endangered, then shouldn't they start evolving into new, more fit creatures? alas, that doesn't happen. what's gone is gone, never to be replaced.

give me a break.

 

[MaxBuck]

I am weary of using logic to counter illogic and the fantastick reading of scripture. Jews have the Kabbalists, and we Christians have the Creationists. So will it ever be.

Bye.

 

[lvbuckeye]

ah, you are just SOOOO much more superior than the believers, huh?

i was wondering how you rectified the Fourth Commandment with your evolutionary thought. you know, the one that says to "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

seems rather confusing for God to start referencing the "fable" right in the middle of giving a commandment about how to worship Him, doesn't it? or perhaps it was that God wanted them to remember the Sabbath in order to remind them that the God they worshiped was the God of Creation...

don't worry. i don't expect to hear an answer from you. more derision perhaps, but not an answer. you can worship whatever god you like. I worship the God of Creation.

 

[sandgk]

reality around them? really?

perhaps you could point out an example of evolution occurring around us right now? don't give me that 'it happens too slow to observe it' crap, either. you said it's reality around us, so back it up. i want a hard example of direct observation.

BTW, why are there "endangered species?" if they're so unfit as to be endangered, then shouldn't they start evolving into new, more fit creatures? alas, that doesn't happen. what's gone is gone, never to be replaced.

give me a break.

Moths.
Pre-Industrial Evolution the population of peppered moths was dominated by those with paler comouflage that fit the pale lichens on trees in English woods. Dark colored moths were rare.
When the Industrial Revolution came these trees darkened, making light colored peppered moths easily observed by predatory birds. The dark colored morph of the peppered moth prospered, as it hid more easily at rest against the tree trunks, darkened by soot and pollution.

All this is a simple example of natural selection, a primary engine of evolution. As efforts to clean up the environment have met with success the demographic of the peppered moth has started to show the return of the light colored morph.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

reality around them? really?

perhaps you could point out an example of evolution occurring around us right now? don't give me that 'it happens too slow to observe it' crap, either. you said it's reality around us, so back it up. i want a hard example of direct observation.

BTW, why are there "endangered species?" if they're so unfit as to be endangered, then shouldn't they start evolving into new, more fit creatures? alas, that doesn't happen. what's gone is gone, never to be replaced.

give me a break.

Viruses and bacteria evolve in matters of years, sometimes in less time. New strands of endemic and pandemic diseases (ebola, avian flu, antibiotic-resistant bacteria) are the result of their ability to evolve. Of course, this is a result of their relative simplicity. Endangered species are the result of an environment changing much more rapidly than a species can evolve - obviously most of the endangered species that we know of are macroorganisms that are relatively complicated and therefore take longer to evolve as a species.

Humans would have the same problem in the face of several plausible situations; nuclear fallout, extreme climate change, etc. Smaller organisms like bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms would have much less trouble evolving, whereas humans would likely die off.

 

[lvbuckeye]

two problems with that example.

1) the moths did not live on the tree trunks, but rather the underside of the leaves. in light of that, the integrity of the example is called into question due to the fact that it has been presented in a deceitful manner.

2) the condition for lighter or darker coloring was already present in the gene pool. the shift from more lightly colored moths to more darkly colored ones is most certainly an example of selective breeding, or more likely a culling of the lightly colored members from the gene pool through predation, but it is not an example of new traits arising; something which MUST occur for evolution to progress.

oh yeah, since no one seems to recognize the fact, it must be pointed out that they are still moths. they haven't evolved into anything... i want to see an example of the peppered moth becoming something other than a peppered moth.

it's reality according to BKB, so there must be at least one instance where it's been observed, right? surely there's been observation of a creature becoming something else...

how about those fruit flies? they've been mutating them for 50 years. have any of those countless generations ever become something other than a mutated fruit fly? surely they've evolved into something else by now...

 

[lvbuckeye]

[quote='BusNative;90365;6]Viruses and bacteria evolve in matters of years, sometimes in less time. New strands of endemic and pandemic diseases (ebola, avian flu, antibiotic-resistant bacteria) are the result of their ability to evolve. Of course, this is a result of their relative simplicity. Endangered species are the result of an environment changing much more rapidly than a species can evolve - obviously most of the endangered species that we know of are macroorganisms that are relatively complicated and therefore take longer to evolve as a species.

Humans would have the same problem in the face of several plausible situations; nuclear fallout, extreme climate change, etc. Smaller organisms like bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms would have much less trouble evolving, whereas humans would likely die off.[/quote]

they're still viruses and bacteria. they haven't become anything else. give me an example of a mutated bacteria that wasn't a bacteria anymore, but was something else.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

LV - my remark was tongue in cheek (thus the wink smilie) and even to the extent that I do believe the push of what I've said, I'm not going to relapse in to argument with you about evolution. There is no convincing you, and frankly, I don't care to try.

Incidentally, the Ark Logistics thread remains open for your analysis.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

they're still viruses and bacteria. they haven't become anything else. give me an example of a mutated bacteria that wasn't a bacteria anymore, but was something else.

Ah, I see what your point is... you want me to show you an example of bacteria growing legs? It's a catch-22 in this case. New species of many different geni are discovered all the time. Because they have just been "discovered" it's harder to know their evolutionary origin without some study and even more difficult to discover the timining of the evolution. And, again, macroorganisms do take a long time to evolve. (edit: what I meant to say concisely is that it's hard to know whether or not recently "discovered" organisms recently evolved from something else - the catch is that once they become whatever it is they evolve into, your "something else" argument returns... the whole thing is circular)

That being said, I don't think it's any small deal that bacteria evovle to resist antibiotics or that viruses become completely different diseases. It's the equivalent of a person evolving to be able to breathe carbon dioxide or drink gasoline without dying... of course that sounds like comic book material, but that's the magnitude of the evolution.

 

[sandgk]

two problems with that example.

1) the moths did not live on the tree trunks, but rather the underside of the leaves. in light of that, the integrity of the example is called into question due to the fact that it has been presented in a deceitful manner.

Wish you hadn't used the language "deceitful" that interjects a value judgement into what should be an intellectual debate.
Let me address the substantive claim you make - that peppered moths rest on the underside of leaves.
It is true that the female will lay her eggs on the underside of leaves. It is not true that the dominant locale of daytime rest for the adults is demonstrated to be on the underside of leaves.
Wiki

From their original data, Howlett and Majerus (1987) concluded that peppered moths generally rest in unexposed positions, using three main types of site. Firstly, a few inches below a branch-trunk joint on a tree trunk where the moth is in shadow; secondly, on the underside of branches and thirdly on foliate twigs. The above data would appear to support this.

So, not resting underside leaves, resting on wood of one type or another. Camouflage mechanism for predatory selection still applies.

2) the condition for lighter or darker coloring was already present in the gene pool. the shift from more lightly colored moths to more darkly colored ones is most certainly an example of selective breeding, or more likely a culling of the lightly colored members from the gene pool through predation, but it is not an example of new traits arising; something which MUST occur for evolution to progress.

Natural selection at work though lv, and that, along with new genetic coding OR expression are two of the most obvious engines for evolutionary development.
The presence in a gene pool of both characteristics does not mean that this example is invalid viz-a-viz evolution. It provides a simple example of one of those engines in action.
(The precise cause of which you likely realize has been the subject of debate. But, the impact of environmental change and resulting predatory pressures still appears to be the most plausible explanation. Wells' objections - which have essentially been refuted - notwithstanding).

oh yeah, since no one seems to recognize the fact, it must be pointed out that they are still moths. they haven't evolved into anything... i want to see an example of the peppered moth becoming something other than a peppered moth.

Well, the population has indeed evolved. At worst you might claim it to be micro-evolution, but you likely know that the response to that is that such a qualification means one is debating merely the time and scale of response.

it's reality according to BKB, so there must be at least one instance where it's been observed, right? surely there's been observation of a creature becoming something else...

how about those fruit flies? they've been mutating them for 50 years. have any of those countless generations ever become something other than a mutated fruit fly? surely they've evolved into something else by now...

Now we come back to what is really a classic side-stepping of the issue.
You set up a predicate - show me a new organism that has arisen before our eyes. A man with three buttocks if you will. On it's face this casually ignores the likelihood, supported by very substantial fossil and scientific evidence, that such successful development of an entirely new competitive species can take much time to occur.
You support that predicate by stating that with all the work done to breed fruit-flies we surely must have created a new species from the same. Which is odd, as speciation has been demonstrated repeatedly with D. melanogaster.
Do you thus seek to preemptively dismiss the work of Rice and Salt, or that of Diane Dodd [ibid], or did you simply not know of the same? Speciation arose respectively within 35 and 8 generations.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I find the following remark from the last link Sandgk provided as particularly telling of many of these evolution debates entered in to here...

Micro and Macro evolution are very distinct as (sigh!) we do not see macro-evolution occuring, this concept is based on pure inference.​

Okay, let's accept this blatant falsehood for the sake of argument. Tell me what is stopping "micro" evolution, which you acknowledge to occur, from becoming "macro" evolution with sufficient time. Inferences aren't automatically wrong because you say so, especially when they make sense. Explain why "macro" evolution still doesn't work when given millions of years. And don't feign impatience with me, you pedantic mouth-breather. I'm the one that has to lead you through basic concepts by your malformed flipper-hand.

To my memory, there has never been any mechanism posited from LV's "side" of the argument which justifies a belief that Micro evolution occurs, but that Macro does not... indeed "Cannot" As is typical, in my view (and this isn't meant to be directed at LV), when pressed creationists have no real answer.

They approach these debates from the following position: There are only two possibilities. Evolution or Creation. If I can show Evolution is flawed, Creation MUST be correct. Obviously, this is a logically flawed position. The failures of evolutionary theory (even if we accept that the failures Creationists rely are indeed failures and not basic misunderstandings of evolutionary theory) are not the successes of Creationism. I can't say I've ever seen a Creationist offer any analysis of their theory... facts or evidence which support their conclusion that God did it...

Plain and simple, creationists rely solely on the "Poke holes and run" argument style. As seriously as creationists seem to take their theory, it seems to me, there would be at least one who would effort to establish its conclusions with reason.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Wish you hadn't used the language "deceitful" that interjects a value judgement into what should be an intellectual debate.
Let me address the substantive claim you make - that peppered moths rest on the underside of leaves.
It is true that the female will lay her eggs on the underside of leaves. It is not true that the dominant locale of daytime rest for the adults is demonstrated to be on the underside of leaves.
Wiki

So, not resting underside leaves, resting on wood of one type or another. Camouflage mechanism for predatory selection still applies.

Natural selection at work though lv, and that, along with new genetic coding OR expression are two of the most obvious engines for evolutionary development.
The presence in a gene pool of both characteristics does not mean that this example is invalid viz-a-viz evolution. It provides a simple example of one of those engines in action.
(The precise cause of which you likely realize has been the subject of debate. But, the impact of environmental change and resulting predatory pressures still appears to be the most plausible explanation. Wells' objections - which have essentially been refuted - notwithstanding).

Well, the population has indeed evolved. At worst you might claim it to be micro-evolution, but you likely know that the response to that is that such a qualification means one is debating merely the time and scale of response.

Now we come back to what is really a classic side-stepping of the issue.
You set up a predicate - show me a new organism that has arisen before our eyes. A man with three buttocks if you will. On it's face this casually ignores the likelihood, supported by very substantial fossil and scientific evidence, that such successful development of an entirely new competitive species can take much time to occur.
You support that predicate by stating that with all the work done to breed fruit-flies we surely must have created a new species from the same. Which is odd, as speciation has been demonstrated repeatedly with D. melanogaster.
Do you thus seek to preemptively dismiss the work of Rice and Salt, or that of Diane Dodd [ibid], or did you simply not know of the same? Speciation arose respectively within 35 and 8 generations.

you are still missing the point that a new species of fruit fly is STILL A FRUIT FLY. i'm not talking about speciation. i am well aware of how that works, and have made no effort to deny it. my argument is against citing examples of microevolution as scientific support for macroevolution. macroevolution only occurs in theory. it has never been observed.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why is it considered invalid, apparently, if it's just a theory? It seems to me no one has ever observed gravity, only its effects.... should I believe in intelligent falling theory instead?