OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[lvbuckeye]

BKB. the thing that stops them from occurring is the fact that there are limitations in the genetic code. people have been breeding cows for beef for thousands of years. there hasn't ever been a 'supercow' invented because with each step of specialization, a portion of overall gene pool is lost. at some point, the specialization fails, and the cows start reverting back towards the norm. the fact is, that over short periods of time, there can be great fluctuation within a kind. but over a great period of time, the population always stabilizes.

*sigh* always with the gravity analogy. why don't you use the wind as your comparison next time...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

LV, those are statements, not demonstrations. You, as Sandgk said earlier, set up the predicate - saying "We need a super cow" to believe this, and then say "We don't have a supercow"

Dairy Cows are indeed different than Beef cattle.

Anyway.... you claim the limits are in the genetic code... let's have it. Clearly you can demonstrate the enzyme, protein, gene or whatever that says "Nope, time to revert" or whatever it's supposed to do according to your view.

I'll continue with the gravity analogy until I get a satisfactory response why I should not believe in some other theory... like intelligent falling. Gravity, is afterall just a theory.... and subscribing to theories is BAD... I can't believe they'd teach gravity in schools either, come to think of it.

 

[sandgk]

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.

I am missing nothing, what it is is that I refrain from being constrained by a side-stepping of the core definitional issue.
What is evolution?
Biologists (scientists in general) define evolution as the change in the gene pool over time.
Apparently creationists want to re-define evolution purely to narrow the arena of intellectual debate. But, as evolution was defined by scientists I think it is presumptuous for creationists to make up a new definition, proclaiming on that new basis that no-one has seen evolution occur. Your argument against citing micro-evolution only arises after such an example was offered - again, I see that as a belated attempt to redefine the terms of the debate.

Here is what you originally asked for.

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.

Speciation, not excluded, micro-evolution (which by definition, due to the short time scale, is exactly what you would see) not excluded.

Nor for that matter would the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, pest resistant plants, persticide resistant insects or other gene pool shifts.

Evolution is an active, continuing process. It does not demand that we have the fruit fly become a moth or vice-versa.

 

[GoBucks89]

Seems like we're getting OT once again. This is a thread about the Bible and Theology, not evolution. There are other threads to argue that.

 

[Bleed S & G]

so how bout that 7.9 earthquake :tongue2:

 

[Gatorubet]

Seems like we're getting OT once again. This is a thread about the Bible and Theology, not evolution. There are other threads to argue that.

Agreed. I think we should return to Biblical prophesy.

What does the Bible foretell in Revelation about Joseph Smith predestined to be a Mormon, rum and coke swilling pirate teacher? IV? Golf? Jeff?

 

[GoBucks89]

You are saying I have used a dishonest approach in describing the Genesis story as a parable. Sorry, but I disagree. ... I do respect the Old Testament, but that doesn't mean I must view it as being a strictly factual account. ... This comment simply makes no sense to me. Help a Buckeye out! (Or as Donnyjr would say, "please explain.")

I don't know how else to say it. On the one hand, the opinions of scientists mean nothing to you in interpreting the account of Jesus' resurrection literally. On the other hand, their opinions are the controlling factor in your belief that Genesis cannot be literally true. You have switched hermeneutical methods when interpreting different parts of scripture. This is what I am calling dishonest. In any case, it is illegitimate to interpret an account of God's activity through the lens of scientific inquiry, since the scientists you are trusting for your interpretation have stated that they cannot even address the existence of God. This would seem to be a prerequisite for addressing the accuracy of a creation account that depends entirely on God.

The subject of God is surely outside of the realm of science. Natural history, on the other hand, is not. Nothing you state here has any bearing on whether the Genesis story needs to be read as literal fact.

The subject of God has no bearing on the interpretation of Genesis? That's an astounding statement, since the text depends on His existence. Not only that, but if there is a God, then history is "His Story", and there is no such thing as "natural" science. All study of "nature" is a study of God's work if He exists.

Quote:
Absolutely wrong! Forensic science is a field of study that attempts to develop root-cause explanations for failures of products, and it is remarkably effective at doing so. Otherwide why would companies spend millions on electron microscopy to study fracture patterns in rebar and I-beams? Your comment is just flat incorrect.

What does forensic science have to do with God's process of creation? If He is undefined, then His processes are undefined. A scientist wouldn't even know what to look for. That is why scientists always search for a "natural" cause (i.e. one that excludes God, or any supernatural entity). Science, by necessity, assumes a philosophical position of methodological naturalism, because the methods and processes of God are not open to scientific inquiry.

Apples and oranges. Evolutionary biology makes no attempt to explain God; it seeks only to describe the historical progress through which His hand was at work in the world (or rather, the historical progress of the development of life, whether God put this process into place or not).

I said: "For things that involve God's activity, we have only His revealed word to guide us. "
Then you said

Here we are in agreement.

So how can you say that scientists are studying a process through which "his hand was at work" when you agree that this is the exclusive domain of scripture?

You are trying to have it both ways here. On the one hand you are giving scientists a pass on defining God, but on the other you regard them as definitive when it comes to describing His process of creation? Again, I think this is intellectually dishonest.

I am out of time, but I'll address the rest of your post later.

 

[MaxBuck]

I don't know how else to say it. On the one hand, the opinions of scientists mean nothing to you in interpreting the account of Jesus' resurrection literally. On the other hand, their opinions are the controlling factor in your belief that Genesis cannot be literally true. You have switched hermeneutical methods when interpreting different parts of scripture. This is what I am calling dishonest. In any case, it is illegitimate to interpret an account of God's activity through the lens of scientific inquiry, since the scientists you are trusting for your interpretation have stated that they cannot even address the existence of God. This would seem to be a prerequisite for addressing the accuracy of a creation account that depends entirely on God.



The subject of God has no bearing on the interpretation of Genesis? That's an astounding statement, since the text depends on His existence. Not only that, but if there is a God, then history is "His Story", and there is no such thing as "natural" science. All study of "nature" is a study of God's work if He exists.


What does forensic science have to do with God's process of creation? If He is undefined, then His processes are undefined. A scientist wouldn't even know what to look for. That is why scientists always search for a "natural" cause (i.e. one that excludes God, or any supernatural entity). Science, by necessity, assumes a philosophical position of methodological naturalism, because the methods and processes of God are not open to scientific inquiry.


I said: "For things that involve God's activity, we have only His revealed word to guide us. "
Then you said

So how can you say that scientists are studying a process through which "his hand was at work" when you agree that this is the exclusive domain of scripture?

You are trying to have it both ways here. On the one hand you are giving scientists a pass on defining God, but on the other you regard them as definitive when it comes to describing His process of creation? Again, I think this is intellectually dishonest.

I am out of time, but I'll address the rest of your post later.

Nothing I have said is intellectually dishonest. The realm of God belongs to theology; the realm of natural history belongs to paleontology, geology, archeology, biology, etc. You choose to believe otherwise. So be it.

You and your Creationist colleagues (at least, those with any intellectual horsepower) choose to fight your battles with rhetorical and logical devices rather than scientific rigor, since those are the only tools available to you. You are a far better rhetorician than I, so I cede this element of the "battle" to you. I'll have to be happy winning the scientific battle, since in that realm I'm essentially engaged in a gunfight with an unarmed opponent. Oh, and also the theological battle, since mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox theologians also agree with my point of view.

 

[GoBucks89]

Nothing I have said is intellectually dishonest. The realm of God belongs to theology; the realm of natural history belongs to paleontology, geology, archeology, biology, etc. You choose to believe otherwise. So be it.

The idea of "natural history" has no bearing on the study of Genesis, since it is based on the assumption that God has nothing to do with anything in history. But if you choose to view scripture through a naturalistic lens, you are free to do so. Like I have said before, you have your beliefs and I have mine. I can live with that.

You and your Creationist colleagues (at least, those with any intellectual horsepower) choose to fight your battles with rhetorical and logical devices rather than scientific rigor, since those are the only tools available to you.

Every argument is logical by definition. There is no way to conduct an argument without logical devices. As for the scientific evidence, it is irrelevant because science cannot account for God, and therefore cannot define or detect His activities. So for the purposes of interpreting scripture, scientific tools are also not available to you, or to anyone else for that matter.

You are a far better rhetorician than I, so I cede this element of the "battle" to you.

Actually, I figured that you conceded when you wrote this:

I similarly have no doubt that God could have created the heavens and earth in seven literal calendar days, with elapsed time being as measured by a modern atomic clock.

That is really all that I am arguing for. If it could be done, there is no reason to believe it wasn't done that way, as long as scripture is our authority. Sola Scriptura, as one great theologian used to say.

I'll have to be happy winning the scientific battle, since in that realm I'm essentially engaged in a gunfight with an unarmed opponent.

Science excludes God. Why would I turn that way for help with the scriptures? Makes no sense to me.

Oh, and also the theological battle, since mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox theologians also agree with my point of view.

The Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox interpret scripture through the church, which is backwards. That is what the Reformation was fighting against. As for "mainstream protestants", would you care to define "mainstream"? I imagine it means "those who accept evolution" which would make your argument a tautology.

I understand that you might be tired of this argument by now, and I'm sure many on the board are as well. If you want to continue, that's fine. But I won't blame you for leaving it either. Anyway, have a good weekend. :)

 

[Thump]

Question:

The people who jumped out of the windows of the WTC on Sept. 11th, did they go to hell b/c they committed suicide?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Question:

The people who jumped out of the windows of the WTC on Sept. 11th, did they go to hell b/c they committed suicide?

In my mind, your question raises two issues that both must be answered in the affirmative to say yes.

First, was their act actually suicide? Second, does suicide automatically cause someone to go to hell?

I would argue that the victims were not committing suicide when they jumped as there was not an intentional decision to take their lives. (There may have been a decision to take them--we don't know, but I would argue that the decision was not intentional, but rather reactionary to immediate events.)

Thankfully, this allows me to avoid the second question and the hornets nest it raises.

 

[Thump]

was not an intentional decision to take their lives.

Yes it was, they chose the lesser of two painful deaths.

Does God distinguish between this kind of suicide and someone who hangs themselves in their basement?

Also, what would the Catholic Church say about those people who jumped?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

My view is easy enough. The expiration of human life is an illusion anyway (in favor of spiritual life), so who cares? While I've never read that God forbids Suicide, I have read he forbids killing. I see where suicide is killing of one's self, of course. However, I look towards the intent of the command, which in my mind concerns the willful taking of the life of another. In my view, each commandment (I'm excluding those which discuss how to honor God) addresses one man's behavior towards another man, or his property. I would say that the Thou Shalt Not Kill command is intended to be of the same rationale. In short, there are two commandments

Worship the one true God
Don't fuck with other people or take their shit.

Suicide, in my mind, runs afould of neither principle....

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Yes it was, they chose the lesser of two painful deaths.

Does God distinguish between this kind of suicide and someone who hangs themselves in their basement?

Also, what would the Catholic Church say about those people who jumped?

Then isn't every decision intentional? If you say yes, that's fine. I can certainly appreciate the view. However, is the intentional option of bad choice A or bad choice B which have been compelled upon you somehow "intentional?" Or, in other words, can we agree that there are mitigating factors in decisions made under extreme stress?

Again, in my view of God and reality, it doesn't make much of a difference... but, I would say, those who hold that it would owe you an explaination with regard to issue two which Grad identified and avoided.

 

[Thump]

Then isn't every decision intentional? If you say yes, that's fine. I can certainly appreciate the view. However, is the intentional option of bad choice A or bad choice B which have been compelled upon you somehow "intentional?" Or, in other words, can we agree that there are mitigating factors in decisions made under extreme stress?

Again, in my view of God and reality, it doesn't make much of a difference... but, I would say, those who hold that it would owe you an explaination with regard to issue two which Grad identified and avoided.

I guess I'm really interested in the Catholic stance b/c I know they believe all suicide leads to a one way ticket down south.