The Evolution of Life and the Evolution of Technology

_{Granville Sewell

May 20, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The first part of the video below, which is essentially my invited talk at a recent meeting in Erzurum, Turkey, is based on my 2013 BioComplexity article “Entropy and Evolution.” However, I want to focus here on the second part, beginning at the 19:40 mark, which discusses the remarkable similarities between the evolution of life and the evolution of human technology. The primary argument of Darwinists, from Darwin on down, has never been “natural selection of random variations is a reasonable explanation for evolution,” it has always been “evolution doesn’t look like the way God would have done things, therefore it must have been due to natural causes, and all other natural theories are even more far-fetched than ours.”

[youtube iG7KI7I7XDo]

The assumption underlying this argument is that God would have created with a magic wand, and new species would have appeared out of nowhere, with no connection to previous species, and we don’t see this in the fossil record (except possibly at the beginning of the Cambrian era!). What we do see, as explored in the second part of this video, are remarkable similarities between the evolution of life and the evolution of human technology, as seen in the patterns in the fossil record, and in a phenomenon known as “convergence.”

After my talk in Erzurum, a young man approached me and said (approximately) “do you, as a scientist, really not believe in evolution? Do you think life was due to supernatural causes?” If I had had more time to prepare a reply, I would have said, “The development of the automobile, from primitive to current forms: would you call that ‘evolution’? If so, then I believe in the evolution of life. But like the development of life, the development of the automobile was primarily due to intelligent causes; would you call those causes ‘supernatural’?”

Some people do not like the comparison, because (1) it may seem to bring God’s design down to the level of human design, and (2) they may say that Genesis 1 does paint a picture of creation by magic wand. With regard to (1), I would say that it does not bring God down to our level, because the things God has designed are so much more advanced than the things we design, but a designer must always get involved in the details of his design, no matter how intelligent he may be. And with regard to (2), although of course Genesis 1 is not an accurate scientific account of creation, even here we see a God who created one type of animal, “saw that it was good,” and proceeded to improve on it; that sounds a lot like the way we create things, though testing and improvements. And if all God had to do to create species was to wave a wand, why does the Bible say that on the seventh day, God “rested from all the work of creating that he had done”?

Comments

Mung:
Yes, even according to the JW’s own modern “translation” Jesus is Jehovah. So why do they deny it?
Barb: Wow. Missing the point seems to be a specialty of yours. They deny it because it’s not a biblical doctrine. And yet the doctrine appears in the JW's own tainted translation. So the JW translation is not bibiical. Barb:
Mung, a person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes.
So? A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the JW.org website hoping to find a JW publication that she can construe as fitting what she already believes.Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Granville, in the future it will be difficult for me to criticize you for not allowing comments to your thread! How quickly things go astray. That said, thank your for enabling comments in this one
No comment. :-)Granville Sewell_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Mung,
As an interesting aside… According to it’s own documentation the Watchtower Society “translators” have decided to insert “Jehovah” in the New Testament text (NWT) 237 times where they think it belongs, in spite of the text that appears in the extant Greek manuscripts. They claim they are merely recovering the “original” Greek text.
Wow. You really have your knickers in a twist, don’t you? Here we go, from the jw.org website: The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does not follow this common practice. It uses the name Jehovah a total of 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. In deciding to do this, the translators took into consideration two important factors: (1) The Greek manuscripts we possess today are not the originals. Of the thousands of copies in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were composed. (2) By that time, those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with Ky?ri•os, the Greek word for “Lord,” or they copied from manuscripts where this had already been done. The New World Bible Translation Committee determined that there is compelling evidence that the Tetragrammaton did appear in the original Greek manuscripts. The decision was based on the following evidence: • Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and his apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text. In the past, few people disputed that conclusion. Now that copies of the Hebrew Scriptures dating back to the first century have been discovered near Qumran, the point has been proved beyond any doubt. • In the days of Jesus and his apostles, the Tetragrammaton also appeared in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. For centuries, scholars thought that the Tetragrammaton was absent from manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then, in the mid-20th century, some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint version that existed in Jesus’ day were brought to the attention of scholars. Those fragments contain the personal name of God, written in Hebrew characters. So in Jesus’ day, copies of the Scriptures in Greek did contain the divine name. However, by the fourth century C.E., major manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint, such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, did not contain the divine name in the books from Genesis through Malachi (where it had been in earlier manuscripts). Hence, it is not surprising that in texts preserved from that time period, the divine name is not found in the so-called New Testament, or Greek Scripture portion of the Bible. • The Christian Greek Scriptures themselves report that Jesus often referred to God’s name and made it known to others. (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26) Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done in his “Father’s name.”—John 5:43; 10:25. • Since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of Jehovah’s name from the text would seem inconsistent. About the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) It would not be logical for James to make such a statement if no one in the first century knew or used God’s name. • The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Christian Greek Scriptures. At Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, the divine name is embedded in the word “Hallelujah.” This comes from a Hebrew expression that literally means “Praise Jah.” “Jah” is a contraction of the name Jehovah. Many names used in the Christian Greek Scriptures were derived from the divine name. In fact, reference works explain that Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.” • Early Jewish writings indicate that Jewish Christians used the divine name in their writings. The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws that was completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.” This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week, “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [understood to refer to the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.” • Some Bible scholars acknowledge that it seems likely that the divine name appeared in Hebrew Scripture quotations found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Under the heading “Tetragrammaton in the New Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: “There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the O[ld] T[estament] quotations in the N[ew] T[estament] when the NT documents were first penned.” Scholar George Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.” • Recognized Bible translators have used God’s name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Some of these translators did so long before the New World Translation was produced. These translators and their works include: A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter (1863); The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864); The Epistles of Paul in Modern English, by George Barker Stevens (1898); St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford (1900); The New Testament Letters, by J.W.C. Wand, Bishop of London (1946). In addition, in a Spanish translation in the early 20th century, translator Pablo Besson used “Jehová” at Jude 14, and nearly 100 footnotes in his translation suggest the divine name as a likely rendering. Long before those translations, Hebrew versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures from the 16th century onward used the Tetragrammaton in many passages. In the German language alone, at least 11 versions use “Jehovah” (or the transliteration of the Hebrew “Yahweh”) in the Christian Greek Scriptures, while four translators add the name in parentheses after “Lord.” More than 70 German translations use the divine name in footnotes or commentaries. • Bible translations in over one hundred different languages contain the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Many African, Native American, Asian, European, and Pacific-island languages use the divine name liberally. (See the list on pages 1742 and 1743.) The translators of these editions decided to use the divine name for reasons similar to those stated above. Some of these translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures have appeared recently, such as the Rotuman Bible (1999), which uses “Jihova” 51 times in 48 verses, and the Batak (Toba) version (1989) from Indonesia, which uses “Jahowa” 110 times.
?Here’s one they seemed to have missed. 1 John 2:23 (NWT) Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son+ has the Father also.+ The plus sign indicates a note (quoting Romans 10:9-10):
That’s a cross reference. You can plainly see that the Son and Father are two distinct individuals in this verse. And there’s no mention of the holy spirit, the third personage of the Trinity. So claiming that this scripture supports that doctrine doesn’t work.
9 For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation. Romans 10:9-10 (NWT): 9 For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord,+ and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration+ for salvation.
And congratulations on missing the entire point of the scripture, which is that faith is not enough; works are also evidence of such faith. Oh, and the Bible indicates that God cannot die. But Jesus had to die in order to ransom us from sin. So, again, the Bible indicates that Jesus and God are two separate individuals. Your point is…? And that note leads to… Acts 16:31 (NWT): ?” 31 They said: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will get saved, you and your household.” Yes, even according to the JW’s own modern “translation” Jesus is Jehovah. So why do they deny it? Wow. Missing the point seems to be a specialty of yours. They deny it because it’s not a biblical doctrine. Mung, a person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity.Barb_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

jlafan2001: "BTW, I realized the quote was from a movie. I’ve probably seen that movie [Terminator] a hell of *alot* [SIC] more times than you have." A pattern is emerging. Extensive reading of comic books, endless re-watching of violent fantasy movies; refusal to read literate works by Christian writers (Kierkegaard, Augustine, Lewis, Aquinas, Calvin etc.); embrace of nihilism. As long as you keep exposing your mind to garbage, you will not be able to think clearly, about evolution or anything else. Why don't you go do a college degree in history or literature or philosophy, and train your brain to sort out good arguments from bad, good literature from bad, and great art from pop junk?Timaeus_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

@Mung: "with God all things are possible." I wouldn't put too much faith in the meandering variation of interpretations that other people have made out of scripture. If we're going to take it seriously, then we need to study it for ourselves. Just like any other science. Hmmm. Not that the opinions of the learned are worthless, but they're far from authoritative. They've been too often wrong. @Piotr & Joe: You cannot understand Revelation without Genesis, and vice versa. Revelation tells us that "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." It is interesting how people can read Genesis 1: 3 and then ask "how could there be days with no light?" FYI: "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light." Hmmm. Anyone who says there could not have been light, after this, is an unbeliever, by definition. Why would any believer take scriptural instruction from an unbeliever?ScuzzaMan_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

Further on Jewish intepretations of Genesis:
In the beginning of God’s creation of: Heb. ?????????? ??????. This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation [because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word ??????, should be different, as Rashi explains further]. It teaches us that the sequence of the Creation as written is impossible... Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 1
Mung_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

Piotr:
I’d also like to learn more about that “ancient Hebrew tradition” of not taking the days of creation literally.
You could start by obtaining and reading "Jewish translations" of the text and then obtaining and reading "Jewish commentaries" on the text. It's not as if they don't exist. You could also search online.
But, as Steven Katz notes..., "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally. Genesis As Allegory
Of course, one always ought to keep in mind that perhaps the "Jewish" view was developed to be different from the "Christian" view, and vice verse. :) See also:
Some Jews and Christians have long considered the creation account of Genesis as an allegory instead of as historical description, much earlier than the development of modern science. Two notable examples are Augustine of Hippo (4th century) who, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain account of Genesis would require; and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time. Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
Hope that helps.Mung_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

Granville, in the future it will be difficult for me to criticize you for not allowing comments to your thread! How quickly things go astray. That said, thank your for enabling comments in this one. :)Mung_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

Please tell me that you are joking.
I am not joking but you apparently haven't a clue as to what I mean. We live in a pretty unpredictable universe operating according to some very consistent laws or forces. These laws or forces produce some very dangerous or harmful environments. They affect what we have to do to survive and survive we must as we overcome adversity. This survival determines who we are as individuals. Without this uncertainty, life would truly be meaningless as we would just be automatons. We can never know for sure what will happen next, why we are here, why something happened. Have you ever thought how meaningless a predictable benign world would be. Uncertainty is what makes life interesting. So yes we need natural disasters, disease, unfortunate events other adversities that are part of uncertainty to have a meaningful life. We have to make choices and choices in a certain world has no meaning. These harmful environments help provide the uncertainty that is necessary for one to use free will and without free will we would be no different than the elements around us blindingly moving according to what forces are operating. We live in a relatively benign spot in this universe. Is there any other spot people would prefer? But even in this relatively benign place, people want it more benign. If that happened, they would find fault with it and want it even better. We have actually made world much safer and will continue to do so. But people would never be happy even in a universe where the worse thing that could happen is stubbing your toe. In such a universe it would be incredibly sterile. Yes, we need natural disasters etc.jerry_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

As an interesting aside... According to it's own documentation the Watchtower Society "translators" have decided to insert "Jehovah" in the New Testament text (NWT) 237 times where they think it belongs, in spite of the text that appears in the extant Greek manuscripts. They claim they are merely recovering the "original" Greek text. Here's one they seemed to have missed. 1 John 2:23 (NWT)
Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son+ has the Father also.+
The plus sign indicates a note (quoting Romans 10:9-10):
9 For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.
Romans 10:9-10 (NWT):
9 For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord,+ and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration+ for salvation.
And that note leads to... Acts 16:31 (NWT):
?” 31 They said: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will get saved, you and your household.”
Yes, even according to the JW's own modern "translation" Jesus is Jehovah. So why do they deny it?Mung_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart (bogart is the cat):
The bible never predicted a beginning to the universe or reproductive isolation. It claimed both as historic fact. However, it did predict Armageddon and the “end times”. How are those predictions working out?
They were fulfilled, as and when prophesied. In the Old Testament we find prophecies of "the latter days" and "the end times." In the New Testament we find authors claiming they were living in the "latter days" and the "end times." Your mistake appears to be that you think it was the apostles who were proclaiming a yet future end times, and that view is clearly contradicted by their own writings. 1 John 2:18 (NLT):
Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come.
Hebrews 1:2 (NASB)
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
The last days were not future, they were present.Mung_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

@Jerry 46: "Natural disasters are a necessary condition for a meaningful life..." Please tell me that you are joking. And, more importantly, please tell me that you do not have any policy making responsibility in government. We need natural disasters to make us better???!! You obviously speak as someone who has never experienced one.Acartia_bogart_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

@Joe 45: just a point if clarification. The bible never predicted a beginning to the universe or reproductive isolation. It claimed both as historic fact. However, it did predict Armageddon and the "end times". How are those predictions working out?Acartia_bogart_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Yes JLAfan, you are sorry because my answer is spot on. Don't blame me because you don't understand Creation genetics.Joe_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001: Thanks for your honesty in admitting that you rely on authority and are incapable of arguing the case for yourself. Why not push that honesty further? Since you KNOW that there are people with valid Ph.D.s who know the math but DISAGREE with the scientists that you agree with, you should be reading the writings of those dissenting scientists as well. But you aren't. You will read Coyne etc. but you won't read Axe and Gauger. How do you know that Axe and Gauger don't get the better of the argument, if you haven't read them? If you say, "I'm not competent to decide between the two groups of scientists," then fine, but then you should not be offering an opinion about Adam and Eve on this site. If you say, on the other hand, "I've read the arguments of Axe and Gauger and I think Coyne etc. have disproved them," then show us here -- with page numbers and analysis -- exactly where the arguments of Axe and Gauger go wrong. If you can't show that, you aren't entitled to the conclusion that they are wrong. Your problem is that you want a vote on the outcome, but can't be bothered doing the study that makes one qualified to vote on the outcome. If you simply remained uncommitted, I would have no problem. But your aggressive atheism bases itself on science, science you admit you don't really understand. That is what is wrong with your position. And as far as I can tell, you are doing nothing to correct the situation. For example, you haven't told us that you have enrolled in a biology program or a math program or a history of science program at a college or university, in order to better understand these issues. It looks to me as if you want to believe in atheism, and science is being used as your excuse. What you aren't dealing with is why you want to believe in atheism, when healthy religious alternatives (other than the fundamentalism you reject) are out there. Clearly for you atheism is at the moment a decision of the will, not of the reason, and science is called in by you to make it look like a decision of the reason. If you could face these psychological dynamics within yourself, you might be able to think about these issues much more clearly. Oh, and just for the record, since you mentioned "creationists" -- I'm not a creationist and have never defended creationism (which I define as the belief that the world originated exactly as described in Genesis 1). Intelligent design is not creationism and arguments against the conclusions drawn from population genetics calculations are not based on verses of the Bible, but on science and math. I know that you used to be creationist -- you said so here yourself -- but this is causing you great trouble in understanding the ID position. You cannot imagine any alternatives other than creationism and atheist Darwinism. This lack of understanding on your part messes you up. Let's face it, the people who raised you in creationist religion (or converted you to it), did you a disservice, because they did not teach you to respect reason and evidence; then, when reason and evidence seemed to tell against creationism, you dumped Christianity, religion and God altogether. Yet you have known all along of non-creationist religious alternatives. You refuse to investigate them. You just keep raging against the creationism you used to believe in. Until you get past this phase (which you've indulged in for a couple of years now), you will never make any intellectual or religious progress. Forget about creationism. Not only about believing it, but also about attacking it or disproving it. It is the fact that creationism constantly occupies your mind that is destroying you. Erase it. Don't respond to it. Don't read about it. Instead, read ID theory, e.g., Behe, Sternberg, Denton. The Bible is never mentioned in their work. And read Christian writers who are not creationist. You will then find that your problem is solved. But as long as you continue to refuse to do these things, you will be trapped like a hamster on a treadmill, endlessly rehearsing arguments for and against creationism in your mind, doomed never to make any progress either in science or religion, and doomed to be angry and unhappy. Assuming you are rational and want to be happy, you will take this advice. But if all that you want is revenge on the creationism you used to believe in, you will keep posting fruitlessly here, changing the mind of no one, and failing to deal with your own inner demons.Timaeus_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

"I concede that I don’t know enough of the math behind it but need to trust the ones who do know enough. If they say “A” then I have to rust it’s “A”. If creationists say “B” then mainstream science would agree that it’s “B” since they don’t, I have to trust that they are wrong. I know that you think this is not honest and I agree but not everyone can have a PHD in everything." Thank you for your honesty about where you place your faith. I agree that not everybody can have a PHD in everything relevant. But why do you trust them? Because their evidence was convincing? You just said that you don't understand it. Because there seem to be more of them? But the majority of scientists have been wrong before (Pholostigon, Aether, the doctrine of humors). Because they give an answer that fits the rest of your experience? But if you only accept evidence that fits your worldview, how would you ever discover if that worldview is wrong? In the end we must evaluate the evidence ourselves. And if for some reason we cannot do so, I think the most honest thing to do is simply to set it aside. Let us base our conclusions based on things we do understand rather than things that we don't, and let us avoid placing blind faith in the proclamations of strangers that we have never met. You claim "...there was no Adam & Eve as shown by populations genetics" Would you care to explain how? Keep in mind that the creationst position is that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect (without mutation), so the problems that come with inbreeding would not have occurred at that time.StephenA_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Now that science has debunked that, christians must re-invent their doctrine. No first couple, no sin, no saviour, no christianity. They have to save this which is false. The religion should end. Judaism and Islam is eqully falsified if there was no Adam. LOL, no. Like I said, ignoring the evidence that's been presented to you doesn't do anything but make you look stupid. I concede that I don’t know enough of the math behind it but need to trust the ones who do know enough. If they say “A” then I have to rust it’s “A”. Except when they don't hold the same atheist worldview that you do. Then you don't listen at all.Barb_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Timaeus I concede that I don't know enough of the math behind it but need to trust the ones who do know enough. If they say "A" then I have to rust it's "A". If creationists say "B" then mainstream science would agree that it's "B" since they don't, I have to trust that they are wrong. I know that you think this is not honest and I agree but not everyone can have a PHD in everything.JLAfan2001_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Joe Sorry but that wasn't much of an answer. Jerry This is the point I'm trying to make. Jon Garvey has various speculations that are among christian theologians because they have to try and reconcile the bible to modern scientific findings. Historically, the church believed in Adam & Eve because that is what the text plainly reads as. Now that science has debunked that, christians must re-invent their doctrine. No first couple, no sin, no saviour, no christianity. They have to save this which is false. The religion should end. Judaism and Islam is eqully falsified if there was no Adam. This is why atheists laugh at theists. Theists are drowning in the scientific evidence against them and they continually deny it.JLAfan2001_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

he theists here need to come to grips with reality and accept that christianity has been proven false. Maybe not directly in the case of not finding Jesus’ bones but it has been falsified many times indirectly. Evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve has been presented to you on this site a few times, and you've ignored it. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away. It just makes you look stupid. Christianity has not been falsified in any sense. Whiny atheist troll is whiny. When are you going to come to grips with the fact that your evidence-free "arguments" prove nothing and impress no one?Barb_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 wrote: "I still haven’t seen an answer to my question on how did sin enter the world if there was no Adam & Eve as shown by populations genetics?" JLAfan: how do you know what "populations genetics" [sic] has shown, when you don't have enough mathematical training to read the population genetics literature? Or do you just take for Gospel truth what you read on atheist websites? I don't suppose it would occur to you to read both sides of the debate, e.g., to read the book by Gauger, Axe and Luskin which challenges the sort of arguments you blindly accept. But no, I guess that would be too much like work. Do you realize how amateurish and uninformed your arguments look to the readers here? If you did, you would stop making them, so I guess you don't.Timaeus_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

I still haven’t seen an answer to my question on how did sin enter the world if there was no Adam & Eve as shown by populations genetics?
My wife and I were in South Africa a couple months ago. The tour guide makes part of his money by telling stories about the people, history, economics, government, etc as well as animals. One of the threads was the modernity of South African science and medicine. Every time we passed the hospital where Christian Bernard performed the first heart transplant, it was pointed out. Similarly there were mentions of how some of the institutions are world class in some areas. One story he told and I have no way of verifying it is that a research team believe modern humans originated on the southern tip of South Africa. It was a typical founder's effect experience where this group separated from the rest and eventually survived a mass extinction and then became the source of modern day humans. My comment was that South Africa, especially the coast area is much closer to what one would call paradise then anything in the Middle East. It is a beautiful place. I was joking but the research on humans is so speculative and changing, that maybe there will be something that will make an Adam and Eve genetically sound. People should ask Jon Garvey about the various speculations on Adam and Eve that take place within Christian theologians. There is a major discussion of it on his site.jerry_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

JLAfan:
I still haven’t seen an answer to my question on how did sin enter the world if there was no Adam & Eve as shown by populations genetics?
Population genetics doesn't take into account evolution by design. Therefor it is useless trying to discern anything about creation using population genetics based on the blind watchmaker. As for The Church- well the OT belongs to Judaism.Joe_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD or anyone else I still haven't seen an answer to my question on how did sin enter the world if there was no Adam & Eve as shown by populations genetics? All the science shows that death, pain and suffering was not because of some spiritual act of rebellion. It's because nature randomly began operating that way. All this death was present long before any homo sapiens made an act against a god. The ancients tried to epxlain it with myths and superstition because they didn't have the science behind it. The historical church believed in a literal 6 day creation. The early church fathers believed it and wrote about it as far as I understand. The theists here need to come to grips with reality and accept that christianity has been proven false. Maybe not directly in the case of not finding Jesus' bones but it has been falsified many times indirectly.JLAfan2001_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Hi Joe @45, That's a good question and a valid point to raise. To me, literal interpretation is "how the text reads". That is, does it read as poetry, or history, or instruction, or principles/absolutes, whilst taking into consideration the culture and historical point at which it was addressed in addition to the original language. But most of all its fitting in with other Scripture. For example, many would say that Israel lost its "inheritance" when it rejected the Messiah and the promises were transferred to the Church. Yet you have real difficulties with Paul talking about all Israel being saved and quite clearly talking separately from the Church. This then matches up with the narrative in Revelation which clearly demonstrates a journey from Israel reestablishing the sacrifical system to acceptance of the Messiah as being the One who they pierced, and thus as a nation, convert to "Christianity" as it were (salvation through Christ). That is how it literally reads and can fit with other parts of Scripture very well. The allegorical interpretation of that passage is much more confusing and the average reader would not easily come to those conclusions, nor do I believe the original reader but that is my bias. The point remains though that literal interpretation fits around those themes. That certainly does not mean though that every sentence is taken literally. RE posts #47-50 - these arguments are ones I never quite understand. It is very difficult for us to conceive the idea that God could create light prior to the creation of those bodies that light associated with, along with evening and morning. However to then say this could not have happened flows against the thought process around the rest of a short time literal creation. I.e.: - God spoke and all the parts of the universe simply came to be - God spoke and incredibly complex organisms came to be - But I cannot accept that light existed before stars etc and there was evening and morning Personally and logically, if you accept the ability of God to do those other things than just because you cannot understand that concept should not mean rejection of the whole thing. SO if you are prepared to accept a 6-day creation week but struggle on the light point, it seems kind of odd to me, as you have already made the faith jump about God being able to simply say and it comes to be. You cannot prove any of that with science anyway so again, it seems odd. However people do use this order to explain the light issue with age of the universe i.e. God created light first then the stars and so light was attached afterwards meaning something 13 billion light years away was seen straight away (of so I believe the thinking goes).Dr JDD_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Joe: I'd also like to learn more about that "ancient Hebrew tradition" of not taking the days of creation literally.Piotr_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Read Augustine.Piotr_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

BTW Piotr- what I said: Also St Augustine said that the Creation days could not have been literal 24 hour days. I didn't say anything else wrt Augustine.Joe_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Well there is no asking him now. I was under the impression that he said the days could not be literal days because of no sun. And if they ain't literal days then what, Piotr?Joe_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Joe:
As far as I know the day-age position is old and is part of some Hebrews’ traditions. Also St Augustine said that the Creation days could not have been literal 24 hour days.
You are making this up. The only thing that puzzled Augustine was how day and night could alternate before the creation of the sun: We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. [De civitate Dei XI.7] He goes on to propose a solution to this conundrum, but nowhere suggests that the days of creation were "ages" or "eons", or anything of the sort.Piotr_{May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply