Does belief in Evolution negate God or vice Versa?

[Yog^sothoth]

Can one believe in evolution while beliveing in God?

Can one not believe in evolution and not believe in God?

this is a point I wanted to bring into my Faith=Religion=Evolution question...but is off topic there.

So I am curious. Does one's stance on evolution proclaim ones stance on christianity?

[James]

Based on actual data on scientists' beliefs in the United States, I would say that, for many, there is no inherent contradiction. Different people have different ways of reasoning about the world and forming opinions, however, which I believe is what accounts for the corrolations between certain beliefs.

[AtheistArchon]

- It depends upon one's specific beliefs.

- If you are a person that takes Genesis to be literally true, and further who embraces a YEC viewpoint (i.e. that the Earth is around 6k years old, the global flood actually happened, and so on), then evolutionary theory does indeed contradict these things.

- However, if you are a person who believes in a deity that created the universe but allowed evolution to play out, thus producing life, then no, evolutionary theory doesn't harm your beliefs.

[QED]

I intend, when time permits, to start a thread critiquing exactly this topic. My target will be the errors found in Don Batten's masterpiece:
Some questions for theistic evolutionists
(and 'progressive creationists')
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp)

I had this half-composed, then closed it without saving my work. I haven't had the heart to come back to it yet. I will do so in due time. Suffice it to say, for now, that Batten's questions will not go unanswered.

[Archimedes]

Today @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97903#post97903)
Yog^sothoth:

Can one not believe in evolution and not believe in God?
Yes. Raelians do just that.

[Warcraft3]

Yog^sothoth:


Can one believe in evolution while beliveing in God?
Absolutely.



So I am curious. Does one's stance on evolution proclaim ones stance on christianity?
No it does not.


Russ

[Korihor]

On the surface, yes, evolution could perhaps pose doubts or questions about theism.

For example, you probably all know of Dawkins' comments in The Blind Watchmaker regarding evolution making it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." It contributed to Darwin's agnosticism after the death of his daughter. One could ask, "why would God put everything on auto-pilot?" The teleological argument for the existence of God doesn't seem that strong anymore.

However, I recognize that theistic evolutionists have considered these problems and harmonized their relgious beliefs with science. After all, if a god is omnipotent, he can create in whatever way he wants and can simply control chance in its outcome.

[wienerdog]

The most evolution could do is take away the force of one formulation of a particular theistic argument. That's all. The problem isn't evolution, it's naturalism. However, most naturalists use evolution to defend their world view, so many Christians equate the two, or think that affirming the latter necessary leads to affirming the former. This is incorrect.

[juliod]

The problem isn't evolution, it's naturalism.

I agree with this. I consider atheism a merely a small facet of naturalism. Theism is only one form of supernaturalism. In developed countries I think it is becoming a minority form.


so many Christians equate the two, or think that affirming the latter necessary leads to affirming the former.

It's happened because many creationists (and all the loud ones) insist that christianity and evolution are in direct and exclusive conflict. The claim, which is bought into by many ordinary christians, is that to be a True Christian you must automatically reject evolution.

DanZ

[CriscoDisco]

The claim, which is bought into by many ordinary christians, is that to be a True Christian you must automatically reject evolution.

As I began to read this thread, I thought exactly this.

There is the sense, by many-- that there is only one "Christian Way" and numerous heresies.

So yes, you can believe in God. But a God that would allow/use the mindless random traits of evolution to meet out his/her ends, is generally not seen as a proper "Christian" god.

That is, if you buy into the argument that Christianity is a set of beliefs, and not a way of life.

It appears human nature, and its tendency to create divisions, has supplanted the radical ideas of early Christianity-- and created various Christian cults with their dogmatic belief sets.

To say that Evolution is not a proper Christian belief-- is to affirm dogma, and to endorse division.

Really, it comes down to: How do you define God?

[Marc Schindler]

Korihor, you're right about theistic evolutionists. I'm one who's from Calgary originally, in fact (I know live just west of Edmonton), and what's more, I'm LDS, too.

For non-LDS, my favourite argument is that of Terry Gray, a Calvinist chemist. Here's his essay: http://www.asa3.org/evolution/noontime.html
(Note that a few years later, after writing a negative review of Phillip Johnson's book on intelligent design, Darwin on Trial (see http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/dotreview.html) he was disfellowshipped by his church, the Northern California Diocese of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and lost his position at Calvin College. He now teaches at Colorado State.

It may interest you to know that BYU has a strong evolution program (including Zoology 475 -- see http://zoology.byu.edu/zool475/) One of the 3 or 4 profs there, Michael Whiting, was recently on the cover of the prestigious Nature, the first BYU professor to have a lead article in that journal in history. His article was on the re-evolution of lost novelties in so-called stick-insects. You can probably find out more about it if you go to BYU's media releases and do a search. The cover illustration was of him covered in stick-insects, which are 10-40 cm long and look like, well, sticks that walk, bite, and sometimes fly (and in one case, the praying mantis, which is closely related to the stick insects, the female will, during copulation, turn around and bite the male's head off, and this doesn't seem to affect his performance).

One thing I disagree with Gould on and agree with Gray on is that if the tape of evolution were to be rerun, so to speak, we'd get more or less what we have now. I don't agree with Gray's reason, though. As a Calvinist, he believes God exerts a supernatural control over the physical world, which is too close to "magic" for my tastes. My background is in math and compsci (U of C, B.Sc. '77) and it's known that there are processes which are chaotic and therefore in practice irreducible (that means you can't run them backwards) but yet which will produce the same results (sometimes there's a bit of a "more or less" fudge factor, depending on the process). If you map time sequences of these processes in virtual space, you get what's called a "strange attractor" (not to be confused with the astronomical phenomenon of the same name).

To me it's perfect: everything is physical, even if "refined matter" (about whose nature we can only speculate, but I assume it's a higher realm with at least one additional temporal and spatial dimension), and therefore caused by God (the Big Bang is, after all, a singularity before which science cannot gaze), but there's no physical proof to rend tears in the veil, so to speak, thereby robbing us of the free agency necessary to develop faith.

So I like theistic evolution because it's good science and it's good theology.

Oh, forgot one little thing. It wasn't evolution that turned Darwin into an agnostic, but the death of his daughter. This is something which happens to many people. It is, of course, the so-called problem of evil. Later in his life, he wrote to his good friend Asa Gray that the last thing he wanted for his theory was to do away with God. But he felt that God hadn't prevented his little girl's death, and, well, you know the rest, as this happens many times each day.

[Korihor]

Yesterday @ 08:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100035#post100035)
Marc Schindler:

Korihor, you're right about theistic evolutionists. I'm one who's from Calgary originally, in fact (I know live just west of Edmonton), and what's more, I'm LDS, too.


Hi Mark, being LDS, you probably recognized the reference from my username pretty quick. :wink:

I'm originally from Sherwood Park, by the way. I've been to Spruce Grove a few times too. Was there a winery there or something? (Not that you'd ever use it :wink:)

I've met several Mormons before, but none (that I've asked) accept evolution. What do members at your church think about it?



One thing I disagree with Gould on and agree with Gray on is that if the tape of evolution were to be rerun, so to speak, we'd get more or less what we have now. I don't agree with Gray's reason, though. As a Calvinist, he believes God exerts a supernatural control over the physical world, which is too close to "magic" for my tastes. My background is in math and compsci (U of C, B.Sc. '77) and it's known that there are processes which are chaotic and therefore in practice irreducible (that means you can't run them backwards) but yet which will produce the same results (sometimes there's a bit of a "more or less" fudge factor, depending on the process). If you map time sequences of these processes in virtual space, you get what's called a "strange attractor" (not to be confused with the astronomical phenomenon of the same name).


I haven't read A Wonderful Life yet, but would like to someday. Of course, since I accept metaphysical naturalism, I would agree with Gould that if things in the Cambrian had gone any differently, then the diversity of life would be vastly different by now, thanks to chaos theory. I can see your point about 'strange attractors' but it's hard for me to fathom how humans could still get here if let's say Pikiai went extinct without any descendants, or if the asteroid that struck 65 million years ago had missed. But I agree, with a theistic perspective, an omnipotent god is beyond the constraints of chance.



Oh, forgot one little thing. It wasn't evolution that turned Darwin into an agnostic, but the death of his daughter. This is something which happens to many people. It is, of course, the so-called problem of evil. Later in his life, he wrote to his good friend Asa Gray that the last thing he wanted for his theory was to do away with God. But he felt that God hadn't prevented his little girl's death, and, well, you know the rest, as this happens many times each day.


Any chance did you see the PBS evolution documentary series? They interviewed a prominent biographer of Darwin regarding his agnosticism and the death of his daughter. He said that the death of daughter was the primary event that brought him to discard his belief in God. However, he said that his work on evolution (i.e. natural selection) did influence this change of belief (i.e. his daughter was simply a victim of natural selection due to her weakness and illness caused by Darwin having children with his wife, a first cousin ).

Anyway, thanks for the comments. :teeth: Unlike my namesake, I hope you don't ask that I'd be supernaturally muted for any future comments. :wink:

[Marc Schindler]

I recognized "Korihor" of course, but also the fact that you were a fellow "Oilbertan." There is a winery out here, actually, but it's in Stony Plain. But Stony and the Grove share a common boundary, and both have started growing toward each other. The winery is on the north side of what is now called Highway 16A, the Parkland Highway (as opposed to 16, the Yellowhead). It's just before the interchange that leads you into the commercial centre of Stony Plain.

We have 2 wards here now, one in Spruce Grove (which has 16 000 pop.) which also includes the acreages between here and Edmonton, and another based in Stony Plain and covers the rest of eastern Parkland County. Sherwood Park has 3 wards now.

As I was saying in one of my longer posts to Socrates, I tend to get it from both sides. Being socially conservative as a group, most LDS lay people do not accept evolution. But much to my pleasant surprise (since that horrid book, Man His Origin and Destiny, was written by Joseph Fielding Smith), even official attitudes and unofficial attitudes are softening. For instance, one no longer finds a condemnation of evolution in the Old Testament curriculum at seminary (our early-morning high school religion classes), and the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is very clear that from a religious pov, the Church is neutral on the issue for the simple reason that it considers evolution to be a scientific theory. It quotes from a heretofore rather obscure letter from the 1Presidency in 1931 which says something like leave geology, palaeontology, archaeology and the other sciences to the scientists, our mission is to preach Christ, etc., and scientific ideas have nothing to do with our salvation. "The Lord has not revealed how he created the Earth" is one specific part I remember from that.

But old ideas take time to fade away to the attics where they belong. If you were to go to Eyring-L, the only LDS discussion group I know of devoted to Science and the Gospel ("Mormonism"), and asked about evolution, you'd hear a collective cyber-sigh of weariness. Kind of hard to debate with people like one genetics researcher who watches evolution every day at work, or David Bailey, the world's foremost authority on mathematical constants, who's a regular there (see his article on Mormonism and Evolution -- a history of how LDS thought has developed, at http://home.pacbell.net/baileydh/papers.html and see articles 7 and 8.

(In fact, I have a whole section of my personal website devoted mostly to evolution, although I'm trying to expand into other areas of science and religion: http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/MarcSchindlerScience.htm)

On the chaos theory and strange attractors bit, what makes my speculation plausible (although of course can't prove it) is not what would have happened at the mutation end. The key to understanding evolution that a lot of people who call it "random" miss is that it isn't random at all -- it's a very reductionist reaction to changes in the environment. And if the Anthropic Principle (the SAP in particular) is true -- again, plausible but not provable -- then one assumes that the truly elegant solution would be for God to create a universe like our's where the environment unfolds as He foresees, despite the random nature of the background, so to speak. That's why many chaotic functions do in fact have strange attractors. For those wondering "huh?" an attractor is the function a time-sliced nonlinear, usually chaotic, function traces out in virtual space. The usual way to teach this is to envision a light on a pedal of a bicycle. Now, the motion of the light at night appears sinusoidal, but with discontinuities (similar to those the Greeks called epicycles in the orbits of the superior planets), and arise due to the relative motion of the bike. But if we time-slice that, so that we in effect erase the relative motion, we see that the pedal actually is describing a circle, a much simpler function to get a handle on, and one which is predictive.

Now with much more complex functions, such as how bubbles connect, or how cream swirls in coffee, or how the Gulf Stream sinks at the "Deep Sink" near Iceland, but might suddenly and apparently unpredictably change if the average climatic temperature changes near the poles (as global warming predicts), the patterns traced out aren't quite as clear, and sometimes you have to do things more sophisticated than time-slicing. Sometimes you have to "dimension-slice" (if the chaotic function is at all fractal in nature), but the point is that you do see a simpler function if you go "up" a level into some kind of virtual math space.

A "strange" attractor is one where even though it's chaotic, which means it's by nature full of apparent discontinuities, for some functions, the attractor that is traced out is a) always the same; and b) tolerant to a certain degree of changes over time as long as the initial conditions remain the same.

Another way to describe this is to imagine the virtual space of evolution as being like a watershed. You may make minor changes in the landscape, and you have (and this is the metaphor for random mutations) water drops coming down all the time, falling as rain, and then running downhill, despite those minor changes in the topography, the water will always seek its level and leave the landscape at the "delta" of where land meets ocean. So in this sense evolution is a river whose egress is always the same, despite some level (below obvious maxima) of changes in the environment. That is, it is time-tolerant to a certain degree. The key is knowing the initial conditions. However, that is in practice irreducible -- how can you tell which mountaintop a given drop of rain fell onto? Yet the drop still manages to exit at the same point. That's a strange attractor. No idea why they call it "strange"; as with so many things in science (like the types of quarks) sometimes things get named for rather whimsical reasons.

Or sometimes because of translation issues. For instance, the science of manifolds (the calculus of complex topographical structures) was given a real boost in about 1975 when a book by the French biologist René Thom was translated into English. It's called Catastrophe Theory in English, but has nothing to do with Godzilla and Tokyo or the Bush government getting re-elected in the Excited States. Rather it's a way of describing manifolds which incorporate discontinuities and are thus not very accessible to traditional analytical mathematics, but yet which can model behaviour (as a biologist he saw these behaviours in the animal kingdom mostly, and noticed that they could be modelled mathematically). That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish I won't get into, but just by way of warning people not to suspect there's anything "weird" about strange attractors (there's also a concept by the same name in astronomy, but that refers to a point in the universe towards which our local neighbourhood of galaxies seems to be rushing towards. It's been suggested that this "strange attractor" is a hugely massive construct of so-called dark matter).

Too bad about the Senators, eh?

[Woman]

No conflict at all!


I hold both to be self evident - evolution AND God!

[Socrates]

No-one said that evolution was incompatible with "god". Rather, it is incompatible with the God of the Bible -- see Is evolution ‘anti-religion’? It depends … (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n4_anti_religion.asp) That's all that matters. The Bible, understood by the grammatical-historical method (which takes into account figures of speech and phenomenological language despite dishonest caricatures), rules out transformism from one kind to another, billions of years, and death and suffering of nephesh chayyah before man.

And it's ludicrous to see known anti-theists like Korihor and QED trying to deny the obvious -- obviously the pathetic rationalizations of the likes of the defrocked elder Terry Gray or the modernist Papist Kenneth Miller have not won them over. And I couldnt give a monkey's what a Mormon cultist like Schindler thinks, especially one who contradicts his own doctrines.

[Omega Red]

There would be if the existence of God was a competing treatise to that of evolution, inferred by Dawkins?<www.cis.org.uk/scb/articles/dawkinspoole1.htm>. As pointed out above evolution sometimes brings in to question our interpretation of the text (literal/allegory). Any decent material out there?

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 08:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101016#post101016)
raywhitby:

There would be if the existence of God was a competing treatise to that of evolution, inferred by Dawkins?&lt;www.cis.org.uk/scb/articles/dawkinspoole1.htm&gt;. As pointed out above evolution sometimes brings in to question our interpretation of the text (literal/allegory). Any decent material out there?

Of course -- see the articles under Q&A: Theistic Evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Genesis.asp#theistic) www.answersingenesis.org/Genesis#theistic Most TEs pretend that the only issue is literal v. allegorical (and the Hebrew grammar shows that Genesis 1 is written as historical narrative), but there's a lot more to it, e.g. sin-death causality.

[QED]

Today @ 10:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101014#post101014)
Socrates:


And it's ludicrous to see known [soon to be edited] like Korihor and QED trying to deny the obvious -- obviously the pathetic rationalizations of the likes of the defrocked elder Terry Gray or the modernist Papist Kenneth Miller have not won them over. And I couldnt give a monkey's what a Mormon cultist like Schindler thinks, especially one who contradicts his own doctrines.

You arrogantly tell us that that it is "LUDICROUS" to think that your interpretation even might be in error on some points, and that to entertain such a possibility is to deny the "OBVIOUS" (that you are obviously infallible in your interpretation).

Yet, you decline to defend the infallibility of your interpretation. How pitiful.

By the way, if you are anti-Catholic (I suppose that you group theistic evolutionists together with "Papist" Kenneth Miller for some reason?) - there is another Miller who is quite protestant and also has the good sense to recognize the value of evolutionary science. His name is Keith. Oh, and he isn't Mormon either.

Socrates, are there Reds under your bed?

[Socratism]

I would judge that belief in evolution doesn't negate a belief in a god, but it certainly is not consistent with the Bible, the foundation of Christianity and belief that Jesus Christ is God.

[QED]

Yesterday @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101448#post101448)
Socratism:

I would judge that belief in evolution doesn't negate a belief in a god, but it certainly is not consistent with the Bible, the foundation of Christianity and belief that Jesus Christ is God.

For clarity- it certainly is not consistent with Socratism's interpretation of the Bible, where the Bible (not a particular interpretation) is the foundation of Christianity, together with the belief that Jesus Christ is God.

No one has shown that evolution is inconsistent with the foundational authority of the Bible itself, and therefore evolution is not anathema to Christianity.

[Omega Red]

Yesterday @ 03:08 PM
post
located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=101123#post101123
)
Socrates:[/Of course -- see the articles under Q&amp;A: Theistic Evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Genesis.asp#theistic) www.answersingenesis.org/Genesis#theistic Most TEs pretend that the only issue is literal v. allegorical (and the Hebrew grammar shows that Genesis 1 is written as historical narrative), but there's a lot more to it, e.g. sin-death causality.


Part way through a discussion with my pastor on a response I've constructed to the "10 dangers of Theistic Evolution" article. What I am looking for is info regarding a critique of Genesis1-9 (like the Hebrew grammar/style analysis - who did it?). Something by Glenn Miller points towards Moses having canonised Genesis to the other parts of OT www.christian-thinktank.com/syl2.html but I would like more info by researchers in this area if poss :smile:.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 09:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101661#post101661)
QED:



For clarity- it certainly is not consistent with Socratism's interpretation of the Bible, where the Bible (not a particular interpretation) is the foundation of Christianity, together with the belief that Jesus Christ is God.

No one has shown that evolution is inconsistent with the foundational authority of the Bible itself, and therefore evolution is not anathema to Christianity.

Of course it is inconsistent : obviously so. Peter warned about uniformitarianism and ignoring the Flood in his letters. He called such people "willfully ignorant" and "scoffers".

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101841#post101841)
Omega Red:




Part way through a discussion with my pastor on a response I've constructed to the &quot;10 dangers of Theistic Evolution&quot; article. What I am looking for is info regarding a critique of Genesis1-9 (like the Hebrew grammar/style analysis - who did it?). Something by Glenn Miller points towards Moses having canonised Genesis to the other parts of OT www.christian-thinktank.com/syl2.html but I would like more info by researchers in this area if poss :smile:.

It seems to me that a person who would "critique" scripture is quite arrogant toward scripture and in considerable danger of angering God.

Perhaps use of the word "study" would be a better word choice.

[QED]

Come on now, Socratism - show your cards. If you can prove that the Bible and mainstream scientific views cannot be successfully harmonized, then do so.

If it's "obvious" that the two are incompatible, then you should be able to prove it. Your saying "it's obvious" doesn't improve the chances that your proposition is correct.

[Socratism]

Today @ 09:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102094#post102094)
QED:

Come on now, Socratism - show your cards. If you can prove that the Bible and mainstream scientific views cannot be successfully harmonized, then do so.

If it's &quot;obvious&quot; that the two are incompatible, then you should be able to prove it. Your saying &quot;it's obvious&quot; doesn't improve the chances that your proposition is correct.

It is obvious to anyone who believes that the scriptures were inspired by God.

Those who believe that the theories of men (evolution and the Big Bang) are superior to revelation from God are of course blinded by their vanity, and to them the truth of scripture is not only not obvious but instead is "foolishness", as Paul put it.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102111#post102111)
Socratism:
Those who believe that the theories of men (evolution and the Big Bang) are superior to revelation from God are of course blinded by their vanity, and to them the truth of scripture is not only not obvious but instead is &quot;foolishness&quot;, as Paul put it. And anyone who believes that their interpretation of the scriptures is open to no error is blinded by arrogence to think they can comprehend all of God's words and messages.

[QED]

Your false dichotomy not withstanding, you need support for your claim. I don't know, a passage in the Bible requiring your interpretation over the interpretation that is compatible with mainstream science would be helpful. Saying "its obvious" doesn't make it obvious, or true.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102115#post102115)
Jimmy Higgins:

And anyone who believes that their interpretation of the scriptures is open to no error is blinded by arrogence to think they can comprehend all of God's words and messages.

Some things in scripture are obvious and some are not so obvious. The accounts in early Genesis are obvious, but they conflict radically with current secular views so people write them off as "myths".

I continue to study scripture, particularly in areas where the meanings are not clear, but early Genesis accounts are quite clear, if unbelievable to those who prefer current secular "myths" like evolution and the Big Bang under the mistaken notion that they are "scientific".

[Marc Schindler]

QED, I believe I've shown that Socrates's (am not sure if that's the same person as Socratism) views are secular, so strictly speaking, objection to theistic evolution are not based on the Bible, but on secular interpretations of the Bible.

Socratism, it is obvious to believers that the Bible is inspired by God, but that doesn't imply Inerrantism, and even if it were to, which "flavour" of Inerrantism do you mean? Chicago? Lausanne? Manila? All three proclamations are different, yet claim to represent Inerrantism.

Omega Red, it is impossible for Moses to have canonised Genesis, as canonization as currently understood implies a closure of the canon. In any case, it's known that Jews didn't canonise the OT until the Council of Jamniah (aka Yavneh) 90-95 AD.

[QED]

It is often the things that seem "obvious" to us that we are most likely to be wrong about.

If the YEC interpretation seems obvious to you, then you are welcome to it.

On the other hand, if you think that your interpretatoin is "obviously" equivalent to "The Word of God" so that the Bible and mainstream science are "obviously" incompatible on a number of points, then you "obviously" have a demonstration to make. The fact that it seems obvious to you also does not make the Bible and mainstream science incompatible.

Please admit that it is your interpretation that is at odds with mainstream science, rather than the Bible that is at odds with mainstream science. If you wish to continue preaching as fact that the Bible and mainstream science are incompatible, then you do have a very strong burden of proof, and to continue that teaching without showing the proof is sloppy at best, and stretches the margins of honesty.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102178#post102178)
QED:

It is often the things that seem &quot;obvious&quot; to us that we are most likely to be wrong about.

If the YEC interpretation seems obvious to you, then you are welcome to it.

On the other hand, if you think that your interpretatoin is &quot;obviously&quot; equivalent to &quot;The Word of God&quot; so that the Bible and mainstream science are &quot;obviously&quot; incompatible on a number of points, then you &quot;obviously&quot; have a demonstration to make. The fact that it seems obvious to you also does not make the Bible and mainstream science incompatible.

Please admit that it is your interpretation that is at odds with mainstream science, rather than the Bible that is at odds with mainstream science. If you wish to continue preaching as fact that the Bible and mainstream science are incompatible, then you do have a very strong burden of proof, and to continue that teaching without showing the proof is sloppy at best, and stretches the margins of honesty.

My only "burden" is to declare to those who would listen that the Bible is true and the theories of men that conflict with it are where the fault lies.

From that point on the Holy Spirit takes over to convict a person of their sin and inability to save themselves. Anyone who truly has surrendered to the Holy Spirit will have no difficulty in receiving the "proof" that they desire in their hearts.

So I would urge you to stop demanding proof and surrender yourself to the authority of the Holy Spirit. If you are able to do this, and it is probably the hardest thing to do in life, you will be pleasantly surprised at what happens then.

[QED]

Nice dodge. I could agree with you on every single point in your last message, and remain an old earth evolutionist.

You claim that the Bible (not just your interpretation of it) is in conflict with mainstream science.

Your tacit assertion is that the Bible and the interpretation of it that you feel is "obvious" carry equal authority. If you are going to make that assertion, then you are taking God's authority for yourself. That requires quite a burden of proof, all weaving and dodging aside.

Take some responsibility for what you preach.

[Socratism]

Socratism, it is obvious to believers that the Bible is inspired by God, but that doesn't imply Inerrantism, and even if it were to, which "flavour" of Inerrantism do you mean? Chicago? Lausanne? Manila? All three proclamations are different, yet claim to represent Inerrantism.

One can argue about many minor things in scripture, but the things that I dispute are not minor points of theology.

God created the universe and stretched out the heavens. They are not being stretched out at the present time as the Big Bang assumes.There is abundant scientific evidence for this.

At the very foundation of cosmology is the idea that material came together by natural means to form the stars, but such a natural process is something that continues to elude the best minds of men.

The same is true of the Earth, planets and moons.

God created multicellar lifeforms at the very beginning and they have been running down ever since, at a pace that indicates this could not have been going on all that long.

Genesis gives a geneology that confirms the short time span

Science has shown that humans descended from a single female, "mitochrondria Eve" about 6000 years ago.

It is scientifically far more logical that diversity from original unicellular and multicellular prototypes occurred over a short time span of thousands of years than that some hypothetical primitive prototype somehow came into existence from lifeless chemicals, and then bootstrapped its way over billions of years to create a fantastic coding scheme and interrelated self-duplicating, self-repairing and failsoft mechanisms that are light years beyond anything so far devised by modern technology.

Every day we hear of new discoveries about cellular and multicellular mechanisms that make the idea of a generation from lifeless chemicals paradigm seem absurd and even madness itself.

Anyone who truly believes in the inspiration of scripture marvels at how science is finally catching up to scripture to reveal how farsighted the ancient writings really were.

But many have more faith in the vain theories of men than in the inspired word of God.

[QED]

But many have more faith in the vain theories of men than in the inspired word of God.

Still hasn't sunk in that you are not God, therefore your interpretation of the Bible is not God's Word?

[Warcraft3]

I find plenty of things within the text itself that tell me the 24 hour view is questionable at best. I think that both Ross, Morton, and the framework view have doen a good job showing that there is alot of stuff within the text that simply does not match up with a 24 hour viewpoint.


Russ

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102256#post102256)
steadele:

I find plenty of things within the text itself that tell me the 24 hour view is questionable at best. I think that both Ross, Morton, and the framework view have doen a good job showing that there is alot of stuff within the text that simply does not match up with a 24 hour viewpoint.


Russ

"Plenty of things" is not very specific.

[QED]

It's more specific than "it's obvious".

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102240#post102240)
QED:



Still hasn't sunk in that you are not God, therefore your interpretation of the Bible is not God's Word?

A simple, straightforward reading is all that is required.

In contrast, other "interpretations" appear to be the work of "modern Pharisees".

It would seem to me that God inspired these accounts to reveal the truth to the vast majority of mankind rather than a few scholars who seem to delight in finding fault with the revealed word.

Who do you think will be rewarded in heaven, those that tear down the Word or those who would uplift it?

Wasn't there a parable about the first shall be last and the last shall be first?

[QED]

A simple, straightforward reading is all that is required.

Not if you want to get the correct interpretation every time. As a matter of fact, no hermeneutic will make human interpretation infallible.

All of this "seems" to you, and "occurs" to you doesn't impress me one bit - nor does your attempt to beg the question by implying that anyone who interprets scripture differently than you is a modern Pharisee trying to tear down the word of God.

Your interpretation is not the Word of God. Therefore, criticisms of it are criticisms of a human interpretation, not criticisms of the word of God. Therefore, a person making that criticism is criticizing human wisdom, not tearing down the Word of God.

I challenge you to back up any of the assertions you have made about mainstream science conflicting with the word of God. You could start by showing us where Paul warned against uniformitarianism 2000 years before it was conceived. You could, possibly, show us how Paul warned against interpreting the Noachian deluge as local rather than global.

I know you won't back yourself up, because you are too proud. But if you are shamed into doing it, please try not to beg the question in the process.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 12:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102282#post102282)
Socratism:



"Plenty of things" is not very specific.

LOL quite correct Socratism. Sorry, I wasnt trying to "post and run". Ill give you some specifics...........

1. There is a verb change within the text itself. The verb "bara" is not used in each "day" of creation. Since there is a verb change, this causes me to question whether or not something is being "created" out of nothing during each "day"

2. Again I mention the nature of the garden itself. It seems to be pictured as a special, protected place within the creation. This leads me to believe that there was something to be protected from (the entire creation was not like the garden). Thus I believe suffering and death was part of the original creation.

3. The verse "and the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the deep" seems to be bringing the readers focus to the surface of the earth. At this point I believe the sun, moon ,and stars are present in space, but possibly could not be seen from the surface of the earth. I believe the verb change further supports this view.

4. In general the verse which says "it had not rained......." seems to be implying that God uses natural means within creation, while the supernatural suspensions of natural law are kept to a minimum.

5. The fact that God tells Eve He will "increase" her suffering leads me to believe that she would have suffered before this declaration, but perhaps to a much lesser degree. Thus suffereing was present in creation, but was held to a minimum within th garden.

6. The presence of the "tree of life". Its very presence implies that Adam and Eve could have died while in the garden. I believe this tree had some supernatural property which kept them alive and prevented old age.

7. I believe the phrase "let the land produce vegetation...." makes the land the subject of the sentence, and not the vegetation itself. To me, this implies a process and very well may be referring to God directed Evolution.


Those are just a few. I will try to post more examples, and get into more detail later.


Russ

[Socratism]

Russ,

You said:


I find plenty of things within the text itself that tell me the 24 hour view is questionable at best.

You then go on to list a number of points that while interesting have little to do with the question of a 24 hour day.

[DunnySaze]

A simple, straightforward reading is all that is required.



But as 'perfect' as the Bible is, we still have to use our imperfect modern minds to try to understand it. It's a document written thousands of years ago by multiple authors in a foreign language, and by cultures who wouldn't necesssarily consider important the same things you do. If I write "The book is light", do I mean it's physically light as opposed to heavy, do I mean that it's light reading, do I mean that it's missing parts, do I mean it's light in color as opposed to dark, or do I mean it's literally composed of light as in a hologram? As you can see, it's not good enough to simply say that I meant what I said. You have to know in what context I'm talking, and that may require an interpretation, which may differ from someone else's interpretation.






Wasn't there a parable about the first shall be last and the last shall be first?




And wasn't there something in Job about learning from the rocks and the birds? If Job can learn, can't we?

[DunnySaze]

God created the universe and stretched out the heavens. They are not being stretched out at the present time as the Big Bang assumes.There is abundant scientific evidence for this.

The Big Bang doesn’t assume this. That the universe is expanding is observed. There is in fact abundant scientific evidence in favor of the Big Bang cosmology.


At the very foundation of cosmology is the idea that material came together by natural means to form the stars, but such a natural process is something that continues to elude the best minds of men.

The same is true of the Earth, planets and moons.

There are still many outstanding questions, but stellar and planetary evolution are not exactly eluding the best minds. There are reasonable models.


God created multicellar lifeforms at the very beginning and they have been running down ever since, at a pace that indicates this could not have been going on all that long.

That’s what you’re supposed to be trying to demonstrate, not to simply assert. That is of course if you want to call what it is you’re doing a science. Now you can make all the assertions you like on religious grounds, but that’s what they’ll be. What does ‘running down’ even mean? By what measure is life running down?


Genesis gives a geneology that confirms the short time span


If read in a certain way it does. I wouldn’t say “confirms” though, since besides the chronological count in Genesis there is no indication whatsoever that the Earth is 6,000 years old.


Science has shown that humans descended from a single female, "mitochrondria Eve" about 6000 years ago.

It has not shown this. First, the number is 200,000 years, not 6,000. Do you have a basis for using the smaller number? Second, this refers to the most recent common ancestor of people living today, in the matrilineal line. In other words, she’s the most recent woman whose mDNA can be found in all people alive now. This individual would have been just one woman in the population, who happened to be our most recent common ancestor. She wasn’t necessarily the only female alive at the time. The other women alive with her could have either left no descendents, or left them but have none that are now alive. The people of her population would also have had a mitochondrial eve somewhere in their past.


It is scientifically far more logical that diversity from original unicellular and multicellular prototypes occurred over a short time span of thousands of years than that some hypothetical primitive prototype somehow came into existence from lifeless chemicals, and then bootstrapped its way over billions of years to create a fantastic coding scheme and interrelated self-duplicating, self-repairing and failsoft mechanisms that are light years beyond anything so far devised by modern technology.

It’s not at all more logical. You may find it better to understand it the first way, but your incredulity is not a logical argument.


Every day we hear of new discoveries about cellular and multicellular mechanisms that make the idea of a generation from lifeless chemicals paradigm seem absurd and even madness itself.

Makes it seem all the more amazing to me. There’s grandeur in this view of life.


Anyone who truly believes in the inspiration of scripture marvels at how science is finally catching up to scripture to reveal how farsighted the ancient writings really were.

Does science have a choice? Can something go against scripture as you understand it and still be considered science?


But many have more faith in the vain theories of men than in the inspired word of God.

We accept the theories of men because of the evidence. We don’t have faith in them. That’s a creationist characterization.

[Marc Schindler]

Socratism, perhaps you could define "obvious"?

[Marc Schindler]

I would judge that belief in evolution doesn't negate a belief in a god, but it certainly is not consistent with the Bible, the foundation of Christianity and belief that Jesus Christ is God.
That, of course, has yet to be proven.

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102375#post102375)
Marc Schindler:

Socratism, perhaps you could define &quot;obvious&quot;?

As soon as you (and Clinton) define "is".

[Socratism]

Dunny,

You can squirm all you want, but the fact is that nobody has proven that the accounts in the Bible did not happen.

Just as you have not shown that any of my statements which reveal that both the Big Bang and evolution are without a sound scientific foundation are not true.

As far as "observing" the expansion of space, who do you think you are kidding? We most emphatically do not "observe" this.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 02:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102323#post102323)
Socratism:

Russ,

You said:
"I find plenty of things within the text itself that tell me the 24 hour view is questionable at best."


You then go on to list a number of points that while interesting have little to do with the question of a 24 hour day.

Hey Socratism.....Ill get back to you later on tonight and explain the connection I see.



Russ

[Socratism]

Dunny,

Here is where the 6000 year number came from:

Science January 2, 1998 p. 20

Calibrating the mitochondrial clock; DNA mutuations and evolutionary dating By Ann Gibbons

Mitochondria DNA appears to mutate faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising questions about the dating of evolutionary events.

In 1991, Russians exhumed a Siberian grave containing nine skeletons thought to be the remains of the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II, and his family and retinue, who were shot by firing squad in 1918. But two bodies were missing, so no one could be absolutely certain of the identity of the remains. And DNA testing done in 1992--expected to settle the issue quickly--instead raised a new mystery.

Some of the DNA from the tsar's mitochondria--cellular organelles with their own DNA--didn't quite match that of his living relatives. Forensic experts thought that most people carry only one type of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), but the tsar had two: The same site sometimes contained a cytosine and sometimes a thymine. His relatives had only thymine, a mismatch that fueled controversy over the authenticity of the skeletons.

The question of the tsar's bones was finally put to rest after the remains of his brother, the Grand Duke of Russia Georgij Romanov, were exhumed; the results of the DNA analysis were published in Nature Genetics in 1996. Like the tsar, the duke had inherited two different sequences of mtDNA from their mother, a condition known as heteroplasmy. But solving the mystery of the Romanov's remains raised another puzzle that first troubled forensics experts and is now worrying evolutionists. "How often will this heteroplasmy pop up?" wondered Thomas J. Parsons, a molecular geneticist at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Maryland, who helped identify the tsar's bones.

Several new studies suggest that heteroplasmy may in fact be a frequent event. They have found that it occurs in at least 10% and probably 20% of humans, says molecular biologist Mitchell Holland, director of the Armed Forces lab. And because heteroplasmy is caused by mutations, this unexpectedly high incidence suggests that mtDNA mutates much more often than previously estimated--as much as 20-fold faster, according to two studies that are causing a stir. Other studies have not found such rapid mutation rates, however.

Resolving the issue is vital. For forensic scientists like Parsons, who use mtDNA to identify soldiers' remains and to convict or exonerate suspects, a high mutation rate might cause them to miss a match in their samples. It could also complicate the lives of evolutionary scientists who use the mtDNA mutation rate as a clock to date such key events as when human ancestors spread around the globe.

....

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.

No one thinks that's the case

---------------

I do.

[QED]

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.

I found this quoted all over the web, but only from creationists sources, so I tried to get the text of the article from Science's online access. Unfortunately, my subscription is free, and therefore it only covers abstracts. Taking your word for it that this is Gibbon's calculation, I would expect it to be erroneous somewhere down the line. 6,000 years ago, humans inhabited most of the planet, and the descendants of groups far flung from one another all still survive. Therefore, it is very improbable that mitochondrial Eve lived no more than 6,000 years ago.

Even if accurate, this falls far, far short of falsifying an old earth or common descent.

[Socratism]

Even if accurate, this falls far, far short of falsifying an old earth or common descent.

The beauty, and also the curse, of evolutionary theory is that it is so flexible it can explain virtually anything, but of course that also means that it is unfalsifiable, and hence not science.

By necessity it can make no predictions, since as Gould used to say. "if the clock were rewound we would expect the results to be different". Thus, ironically the only prediction it makes is that it can't predict.

[QED]

Today @ 11:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102525#post102525)
Socratism:



The beauty, and also the curse, of evolutionary theory is that it is so flexible it can explain virtually anything, but of course that also means that it is unfalsifiable, and hence not science.

Hogwash, as you already know.


By necessity it can make no predictions, since as Gould used to say. &quot;if the clock were rewound we would expect the results to be different&quot;. Thus, ironically the only prediction it makes is that it can't predict.

Again, hogwash, along with selective paraphrasing of Gould. As you already know.

[Socratism]

I think that Gibbons had tongue in cheek with the 6000 number. The earlier number in the article stated a 20 times too large factor, and I am sure dividing the 100-200k by 20 came so close to 6000 that she couldn't resist the "joke". After all, creationists never invented the mocking title of "mitochrondrial Eve".

[QED]

Today @ 11:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102528#post102528)
Socratism:

I think that Gibbons had tongue in cheek with the 6000 number. The earlier number in the article stated a 20 times too large factor, and I am sure dividing the 100-200k by 20 came so close to 6000 that she couldn't resist the "joke"After all, creationists never invented the mocking title of "mitochrondrial Eve".

Maybe so. From what you quoted, I don't see any rigorous calculation (even on the number of "perhaps by a factor of 20").
Joke or not, the calculation is probably not reliable.

By the way, I've always seen the title "mitochondrial Eve" to be anything but mocking. Eve is the traditional name of the common female ancestor. I believe the title is just a tip of the hat to an icon from the larger culture.

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102527#post102527)
QED:



Hogwash, as you already know.



Again, hogwash, along with selective paraphrasing of Gould. As you already know.

Sadly, the hogwash of evolution has not only been sold to a gullible public but also to the people who teach it as well.

This lie ranks right up there with "you shall not surely die".

So does the "ongoing expansion of the coordinates of space".

[QED]

Today @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102545#post102545)
Socratism:



Sadly, the hogwash of evolution has not only been sold to a gullible public but also to the people who teach it as well.

Bluster. Look at AiG's target audience if you want "gullible".


This lie ranks right up there with &quot;you shall not surely die.

And "and ye shall be as gods"? (Reference to the substitution Word of God in place of YEC interpretation)


So does the "ongoing expansion of the coordinates of space". Ongoing is kind of stark, because most of the data that reveals the expansion comes from light traveling to us at some distance. It is possible that yesterday, the brakes were slammed on, and we would not yet perceive it. Without any reason to think this should have happened yesterday, we might be safe in assuming that the expansion continues.

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102558#post102558)
QED:



Bluster. Look at AiG's target audience if you want &quot;gullible&quot;.

And &quot;and ye shall be as gods&quot;? (Reference to the substitution Word of God in place of YEC interpretation)

Ongoing is kind of stark, because most of the data that reveals the expansion comes from light traveling to us at some distance. It is possible that yesterday, the brakes were slammed on, and we would not yet perceive it. Without any reason to think this should have happened yesterday, we might be safe in assuming that the expansion continues.

Very good point about the brakes being slammed on.

Say about 6000 years ago?

[QED]

I honestly don't know if we would be able to detect it if expansion stopped 6,000 years ago or not. There certainly is no indication that such is the case.

Edit:

I found this article by searching for "accelerating expansion". Currently it is believed that the expansion is accelerating "now". This tells why:

http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-6/p17.html

Of course, this trend could have stopped recently enough that we have yet to detect it, but that's pure 100% unadulterated speculation, so who cares?

[Omega Red]

Socratism: Angering God for asking a question? Please let him sit in my judgment on this one. If I undermine his character or his word then you may correct me of course. If I undermine your understanding of his word, then help me to understand.

Critique – (noun). Analysis, assessment, review, appraisal

Maybe I missed something here? My NIV introduction has something interesting to say about recognizing men as fallible and they offer a prayer for their correct interpretation of God’s word.

If we accept 100% what we read as fact…

Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was (or became) formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

Can we correctly say that God created all the cosmos and the earth before he got round to the 6-day creation account? This would negate the need to find new theories to support an 8,000 year old universe & earth.


Marc Schindler: Thanks for the heads-up on canonization. Moses is the candidate for editing them into one book right?

[QED]

The simple fact is that YEC types cannot bear to argue their ideas, evidence, and interpretations against other ideas, evidence, and interpretations. Maybe it is fear of being proved wrong. Maybe a penchant for the grandiose. Maybe it is sheer arrogance.

For whatever reason, they must present their ideas as "God's Word" against any evidence or argument that disagrees with their interpretation as man's vain musings.

[wienerdog]

Macro-evolution seems inconsistent with the biblical text insofar as it states that God created the various animals to multiply "after their kinds." While "kind" is certainly ambiguous, it seems to imply some discontinuity between animals. The direct creation of Adam and Eve are also difficult to reconcile with evolutionary theory. These are my interpretations.

I would also point out that there are plenty of passages in Scripture which seem to be saying something they're not ("a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."--Jms. 2:24). Nevertheless, I don't think an old earth is not obvious from Scripture. It's "obvious" that creation week is God's week; and it's "obvious" from Scripture that God's experience of time is radically different from our own. If these two premises hold, then it's at least reasonable to hold to an old earth without denying the plain meaning of the text.

[Marc Schindler]

Socratism, I had to chuckle at your citation. It doesn't say what you think it does; in fact, it supports evolution. First of all, this article discusses a rare form of double inheritance of mtDNA, which one normally receives from one's mother -- it is common amongst royalty because of their inbreeding. BUT, mtDNA mutation doesn't effect evolution, because it is the DNA of the mitochondria. Not only are the mitochondria genetically independent of the genome per se (which is carried through germ cell, or sexual DNA), but the very existence of mitochondria is explained -- modelled, if you will (predicted, as some might say) -- by evolution. Mitochondria used to be free-living bacteria which became at first parasitic and then symbiotic creatures within one of our evolutionary ancestors.

A modern example of this is e. coli, a common bacteria found in our gut. The fact is, we need e. coli in order to digest our food, but they are independent organisms. Mitochondria used to be like that, but eventually, cells incorporated them more tightly and the "deal" they made with cells, so to speak, is that the cell would provide them with a safe environment in which to procreate, and they in turn play an important part in cell energy production (read any beginner's text on cytology for how this works).

Now, I know the paper says that heteroplasmy is not as rare as scientists had thought, but things move fast in evolutionary biology. By 1999 it began to be suspected that mtDNA samples were very difficult to analyze except in forensic cases, when they could be obtained and analyzed very quickly. In cases like the czars, the reason the incidence of heteroplasmy seemed so high was because the mtDNA did not match the phenotype for some unknown reason, not necessarily because it had mutated (that would have been statistically analyzable).

For instance, in J Med Genet 1999;36:505-510 ( July ) a paper, Mitochondrial DNA analysis: polymorphisms and pathogenicity Patrick F Chinnerya, Neil Howellb, Richard M Andrewsc, Douglass M Turnbulla, said [abstract]:

"The investigation of mtDNA disease can be relatively straightforward if a person has a recognisable phenotype and if it is possible to identify a known pathogenic mtDNA mutation. The difficulties arise when no known mtDNA defect can be found, or when the clinical abnormalities are complex and not easily matched to those of the more common mitochondrial disorders. We will describe here the difficulties that can be encountered during the identification of pathogenic mtDNA mutations and the approaches that can be used to confirm, or eliminate, a likely pathogenic role, in either single gene diseases or in multifactorial disorders."

By early 2003, it was recognized that this difficulty in matching phenotype with mtDNA abnormality was due to the deterioriation of mtDNA. As a geneticist I know who works for a private company in the Bay Area says, they always FedEx samples, because if they don't, the sample is useless. But until February of this year, although they had their suspicions, they didn't know why. Here's why:

February 20, 2003 issue of Nature pages 773 and 774.
"Error Reports Threaten To Unravel Databases Of Mitochondrial DNA

"by Carina Dennis

"More than half of all published studies of human mitochondrisl DNA (mtDNA) sequences contain mistakes, according to a geneticist at the University of Cambridge.

"To the occasional chagrin of his peers, Peter Forster has repeatedly pointed out errors in published mtDNA sequences, the genetic material from cells mitochondria, which are inherited from the mother. But his commmentary in the latest issue of Annals of Human Genetics argues that the problem is far bigger than researchers had imagined.

"The mistakes may be so extensive that geneticists could be drawing incorrect conclusions in studies of human populations and evolution, says Forster. They may also confuse forensic analyses that rely on the published squences, he adds."

Back to the drawing bord, Soc, ol' chap. See, this is the problem arguing with creationists -- their own personal knowledge of science is usually rather minimal at best, and so they rely on quotes, but they don't understand the science behind the quotes, so can easily slip on a banana peel.
:yipee:

[Marc Schindler]

Wienerdog:

It's "obvious" that creation week is God's week; and it's "obvious" from Scripture that God's experience of time is radically different from our own.


Not only is the actual linear time irrelevant (the concept of "time's arrow" is one we inherited from the Greeks; Semites thought of time in terms of cycles, which is one reason, incidentally, why Isaiah especially makes prophecies which can be fulfilled more than once. It's the typology of "Babylon", "Zion," and "Egypt" which are more important than the actual contemporary events. But I digress.

Philo of Alexandria, who was roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, says in his essay on Moses that not only is the time period symbolic, but so is the number of time periods. He says the reason God created the earth (which, by the way, in Hebrew means the 'universe' as we would say today), is that 6 is a perfect number. Now, Philo was very hellenized -- 6 is not a perfect number in ancient gematria, the Hebrew pseudo-science of numerology which plays a big role in the Kabbala, for instance, but it does play a role in Pythagorean mystery doctrine, and Pythagoras influenced Philo. Why is it perfect? Because it's the only number whose factors, including 1, also add up to the number. That is, 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6.

The point isn't even whether Philo was right, but this was an idea that was floating around where most Jews lived at the time (Egypt, surprisingly, not Judaea; remember that Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt for safety when He was a baby, and the LXX was created for the Jews in the Nile delta who could no longer speak Hebrew or Aramaic).

It just shows the danger of retrojecting our modern anachronistic ideas back into a text written by people with a Weltanschauung we would be hard put to understand. (It's also the danger of Inerrantism, whose implications become downright silly the more literalistic they become).

[Marc Schindler]

Wienerdog:

It's "obvious" that creation week is God's week; and it's "obvious" from Scripture that God's experience of time is radically different from our own.


Not only is the actual linear time irrelevant (the concept of "time's arrow" is one we inherited from the Greeks; Semites thought of time in terms of cycles, which is one reason, incidentally, why Isaiah especially makes prophecies which can be fulfilled more than once. It's the typology of "Babylon", "Zion," and "Egypt" which are more important than the actual contemporary events. But I digress.)

Philo of Alexandria, who was roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, says in his essay on Moses that not only is the time period symbolic, but so is the number of time periods. He says the reason God created the earth (which, by the way, in Hebrew means the 'universe' as we would say today), is that 6 is a perfect number. Now, Philo was very hellenized -- 6 is not a perfect number in ancient gematria, the Hebrew pseudo-science of numerology which plays a big role in the Kabbala, for instance, but it does play a role in Pythagorean mystery doctrine, and Pythagoras influenced Philo. Why is it perfect? Because it's the only number whose factors, including 1, also add up to the number. That is, 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6.

The point isn't even whether Philo was right, but this was an idea that was floating around where most Jews lived at the time (Egypt, surprisingly, not Judaea; remember that Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt for safety when He was a baby, and the LXX was created for the Jews in the Nile delta who could no longer speak Hebrew or Aramaic).

It just shows the danger of retrojecting our modern anachronistic ideas back into a text written by people with a Weltanschauung we would be hard put to understand. (It's also the danger of Inerrantism, whose implications become downright silly the more literalistic they become).

[Marc Schindler]

Wienerdog:

It's "obvious" that creation week is God's week; and it's "obvious" from Scripture that God's experience of time is radically different from our own.


Not only is the actual linear time irrelevant (the concept of "time's arrow" is one we inherited from the Greeks; Semites thought of time in terms of cycles, which is one reason, incidentally, why Isaiah especially makes prophecies which can be fulfilled more than once. It's the typology of "Babylon", "Zion," and "Egypt" which are more important than the actual contemporary events. But I digress.)

Philo of Alexandria, who was roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, says in his essay on Moses that not only is the time period symbolic, but so is the number of time periods. He says the reason God created the earth (which, by the way, in Hebrew means the 'universe' as we would say today) in six days, is that 6 is a perfect number. Now, Philo was very hellenized -- 6 is not a perfect number in ancient gematria, the Hebrew pseudo-science of numerology which plays a big role in the Kabbala, for instance, but it does play a role in Pythagorean mystery doctrine, and Pythagoras influenced Philo. Why is it perfect? Because it's the only number whose factors, including 1, also add up to the number. That is, 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6.

The point isn't even whether Philo was right, but this was an idea that was floating around where most Jews lived at the time (Egypt, surprisingly, not Judaea; remember that Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt for safety when He was a baby, and the LXX was created for the Jews in the Nile delta who could no longer speak Hebrew or Aramaic).

It just shows the danger of retrojecting our modern anachronistic ideas back into a text written by people with a Weltanschauung we would be hard put to understand. (It's also the danger of Inerrantism, whose implications become downright silly the more literalistic they become).

[Marc Schindler]

QED:

Taking your word for it that this is Gibbon's calculation, I would expect it to be erroneous somewhere down the line. 6,000 years ago, humans inhabited most of the planet, and the descendants of groups far flung from one another all still survive. Therefore, it is very improbable that mitochondrial Eve lived no more than 6,000 years ago.


Well, I do have access to an institutional subscription. And guess what. This part, which Soc set apart by a dashed line (so I don't think he deliberately lied, but perhaps he fell for a trick of AiG; I don't know, I don't want to ascribe negative motives to anyone), doesn't appear in the original article:

" Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. "

That's the creationist(s) speaking, not Ann Gibbons.

[Woman]

Marc - It was almost worth a triple post!

:yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

And thanks for tracking down the Science article.

[Marc Schindler]

Woman, ¡Muchos tacos! as they say in Tex-Mex. What I think creationists don't count on is that some people really do know how to research. If I had a nickle for every hour I spent in the university or medical library.....well, I wouldn't be wasting my time here! :brow:

[QED]

Marc, does the claim of a 6,000 y date for Mitochondrial Eve appear anywhere in the Gibbon's paper? AiG paraphrases the paper saying that it does:


Even if the last common mitochondrial ancestor is younger than the last common real ancestor, it remains enigmatic how the known distribution of human populations and genes could have arisen in the past few thousand years.’4

The review in Science’s ‘Research News’ goes still further about Eve’s date, saying that ‘using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.’

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp

The reference given is the Gibbons paper, not a secondary source, so this could be another example of plagiarism and poor scholarship on the part of AiG.

Since this claim is all over the internet on creationist sites, I may take the time to count the instances where it is plagiarized & even see if I can track down the original source of the error.

Edit: I'm still not 100% sure on this. Without paying the $10.00 for the article, I did a search at Science Mag's web-site on the term "6000 years". Gibbon's paper did show up in the search results. If that term is in the paper, does it show up in some other context?

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102828#post102828)
Marc Schindler:

QED:


Well, I do have access to an institutional subscription. And guess what. This part, which Soc set apart by a dashed line (so I don't think he deliberately lied, but perhaps he fell for a trick of AiG; I don't know, I don't want to ascribe negative motives to anyone), doesn't appear in the original article:

&quot; Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that &quot;mitochondrial Eve&quot;--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. &quot;

That's the creationist(s) speaking, not Ann Gibbons.

I added the dashed line to separate the reference quotation from my own final comment. The entire article, which I discovered during a survey of molecular dating methods, is saved in my files. At the time I had online access to articles from Science and found many "juicy" discoveries similar to this one. I might say that I was appalled at the rationalizations going on in the name of science, a field that I have loved since I was in the 4th grade.

As you noted I included the comment that "no one believes that"
so that I could not be accused of quoting out of context. It is really not necessary to include it though, because from past experience we would expect evolutionists to consider any finding irrelevant that conflicts so sharply with "accepted" knowledge.

In any case the mitochondrial method shows in this case what it shows regardless of the opinions of the community. My intent here was to show that anything that agrees with the paradigm is accepted without questioning it, and anything that doesn't is rationalized away using any number of available arguments for what "might" have caused the "problem".. Heads I win, tails you lose.

BTW, I find most cases where creationists are accused of "quoting out of context" to be similar to this one.

1. A finding is shown to conflict with the current paradigm. This is the part that is quoted by creationists.

2. A subjective rationalization is made by the researcher to "explain" why the data does not "really" mean anything. This part is hogwash and generally omitted when quoting .

Evolutionists then cry "gotcha" and claim that the creationist is quoting out of context. Since the science actually does conflict with the data I feel it is not quoting out of context to omit the subjective rationalization, since data is data and subjective rationalization is not. In addition the subjective rationalizations are frequently very lengthly and tortuous and who needs to record such hogwash in great detail.

Evolutionists have many subjective rationalizations in their "bag of tricks" and we would always expect them to use any or all of them in order tio reject data that conflicts with the main paradigm. This is so second nature for them it is essentially automatic and they are so thoroughly indoctrinated in the paradigm during their educational experience that later in their careers they seem to be totally unaware that they are doing it.

[QED]

Socratism,

No one even started to accuse you of quoting out of context, and wouldn't have even if you neglected the next line "no one believes that".

The question is over whether the quote is accurate. I'm not wanting to spend $10 to find out, but I would like to have the answer. I'm hoping to get clarification from Marc (who has access to the original paper) on whether the quote is accurate. According to him, this whole section is missing from it:

"Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."

I'm asking him to double check, because the paper is quoted as saying this (or part of it) by numerous on-line creationist organizations. If it really isn't there, then this is another example of plagiarism (citing a primary source when the info is really taken from a secondary source), and possibly misquotation - depending on where the mistake or error was made.

It may be that this is not such an example. I'm looking for information that will shed light on that very question.

Nothing to do with quoting out of context on this one.

[Socratism]

QED,
Since I cut and pasted the entire article in one fell swoop from Lexus/Nexus I would assume that the portion I extracted and posted on this thread is the same as what appears in hardcopy in Science magazine.

You should be aware that Ann Gibbons is a science writer at Science magazine and not one of the original researchers of the material referenced in the summary article she wrote. I am sure she has taken much "flak" over her offhand attempt at humor.

[QED]

Ok, perhaps I have erred in referring to her article as a paper. Perhaps it is only a review. And perhaps those really are her words. Again, if that is the case, then her idea (or joke, as the case may be) seems to be in error. If they are not her words, then we have a case of misquotation.

I'd like to have more than one confirmation that those were actually her words, but I will give your affirmation the weight it deserves.

[Socratism]

I'd like to have more than one confirmation that those were actually her words, but I will give your affirmation the weight it deserves.

Which is apparently nil.

[QED]

I have a certain degree of suspicion built up for any creationist source whatsoever.

In your case, I don't think you would come out and lie about something, so I give your statement a fair degree of credibility. On the other hand, I take your pronouncements on "findings" of scientists with a huge grain of salt. When you said that according to the "recalibrated" clock, mitochondrial Eve was about 6,000 years old, I knew something was fishy.

It looks like it will turn out that your source is accurately quoted. What was fishy was that your source was a joke in a review, not a finding in a paper.

[apop1]

I have subscription and checked the article.

That quote is correct and from the article. Obviously much of the article is not quoted which states the dissenting views of the effects of heteroplasmy and hotspots of heteroplasmy on the mitochondrial clock. But wether those objections are relevant or not would have been too premature without further studies of the phenomena as the report is news in brief of a recently (at the time) published paper

Her calculation of 6,000 years is if the 1 mutation every 800 years is correct and that if you took the most extreme values from earlier studies ( 1 every 12,000 years) and the date of the mitochonrial eve that is the most recent (not most recently published, just closet to present time) of the mitochondrial eve (100,000 years), does give 6600 years ago. I think she probably used this number on purpose but that is totally guessing.

It is a 1998 article, not really sure what has been done and published on the subject since then (mitochondrial clocks not really my research specialty).

apop1

[QED]

Thank you, apop. Together with Socratism's affirmation and my own primitive investigation, I'm satisfied that the creationists got a quote right this time.

I'm not sure what has been done since then either, but I'm certainly not going to convert over a "worst case" calculation in a review article.

[apop1]

really is not much of a big deal. MOstly tells us what we have known for a long time, the mitochondrial clock can be unreliable until we understand it better. I remember reports to that effect back in 1994 and 1995 when i started my PhD. That depending on what genes or loci you look at you can get widely different "ticks" of the mt molecular clock.

and while the quote was correct, much of the argument and dissenting opinion was removed (though socratism(es) dont remember which one was writing in the thread, i think mentioned that earlier, or maybe not, too lazy to go back and reread all the posts). It was really just a preliminary study of an odd phenomena that pointed out that the mt clock could have a number of problems (which we already knew) and could have some false negatives in Forensic analysis

[QED]

apop,

I'm sure you are right. I'm sure if creationists really cared about the data, they would do real research to try and correctly calibrate the mitochondrial clock, then would publish whatever findings their research produced. On the other hand, this would be risky for them, because their findings are not guaranteed to line up with their foregone conclusion. I expect they don't care enough about the data to take that risk.

[apop1]

a quick browse of mt clock papers have indicated that the field is pretty undecided right now. Just too much conflicting data, lots of theories but not any that are particularly compelling over the others.

Traditional mutational hotspots tend to be out of favor, and there is samll vocal group that advocates recombination.

So in summary, it is not much better than it was 10 years ago to be honest. Lots of data, much of it conflicting.

[Marc Schindler]

This is all a big red herring anyway. We do not inherit phenotypical changes from mtDNA. mtDNA are the DNA of the mitochondria, which used to be independent bacterial beings which later developed a symbiotic nature with many animals. All mtDNA tells us is two things things: 1) how mitochondria, a part of our cell, mutated; and 2) forensically it can be used to establish matrilineal descendance.

That's it. And any mtDNA over 2 days old starts to deteriorate anyway.

[QED]

I didn't mean to imply they would immediately have consistent results to show. Only that if they cared about the data they would do the research and report the results, rather than sit on their bottoms and selectively quote the people who are actually doing the research.

[apop1]

actually there a number of phenotypic changes we can inherit from mitochondria, as there are a number of mitochondrial diseases from mitochonrial genes.

I agree it is a red herring as far as determing ages and molecular phylogenies, because the data is just too varied and confusing at the present.

I think understanding them can be important and may give clues to phylogenies but presently they are just easy targets to get to data that tells you what you want it to.

apop1

[DunnySaze]

Dunny,

You can squirm all you want, but the fact is that nobody has proven that the accounts in the Bible did not happen.



But this is exactly backwards. It's up to the 'scientific creatrionists' to demonstrate that creation most likely DID happen as described in the Bible, using the evidence. You cannot simply assume something is true if it's not proven false. This would be falling into the classic argumentum ad ignorantiam trap.


Just as you have not shown that any of my statements which reveal that both the Big Bang and evolution are without a sound scientific foundation are not true.

Yet. So many egregious errors will take time to dispell.


As far as &quot;observing&quot; the expansion of space, who do you think you are kidding? We most emphatically do not &quot;observe&quot; this.

OK, I'll use the creationist word 'inferred', or would you rather 'assumed'?

[Marc Schindler]

apop1: what phenotypic changes do we inherit from mtDNA?

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103324#post103324)
DunnySaze:





[quote]But this is exactly backwards. It's up to the 'scientific creatrionists' to demonstrate that creation most likely DID happen as described in the Bible, using the evidence.

The evidence is consistent with the account in Genesis. That is what all of the forum threads dicuss in detail.


You cannot simply assume something is true if it's not proven false.

Evolutionists do this all the time.


Yet. So many egregious errors will take time to dispell.

I await with eager anticipation.


OK, I'll use the creationist word 'inferred', or would you rather 'assumed'?

I am glad you agree that the expansion of space is only inferred, not "observed".

Thhe observation you are probably thinking of is the Red Shift, which is reliably known to be affected by velocity (Doppler Shift) and gravity and is suspected to be affected if space expands or by the decay of photons in their travel through space.

Unfortunately it has been shown that the Red Shift velocity inferences from spiral galaxies are inconsistent with celestial mechanics. Instead of questioning the velocity inference most astronomers have preferred to posit "dark matter" as a solution to the "mystery", despite the fact that the only evidence for it is the inferred velocity inconsistency. Go figure.

[garthoverman]

A small note to Soctratism:

I am glad you agree that the expansion of space is only inferred, not "observed".
But literally ALL of our observations are to some degree indirect. We infer the existence of the sun from the patterns that the photons make on our retinas. The inference of an expanding universe operates on the same assumptions that you presuppose when you observe your monitor sitting in front of you, specifically: solipsism is false and the connection between reality and your mind is absent of interference from intermeddling gods. :teeth:

Yours,
Garth

[apop1]

some mitochondrial diseases...

basically taken from pub med (could not remember most of the names off top of my head except the first one)

Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (this is most well known i think)

certain mtochondrial encephalomyopathies

Kearns-Sayre syndrome (KSS)


There is also a good paper on it

Am J Hum Genet 2003 Jun;72(6):1515-26
which is about mtdna involved in diseases more familiar diseases llike NIDDM

there could be a lot more, they are coming out more often now. Unfortunately hyperplasmy does cause a lesser degree of penetrance of most of these diseases

[Marc Schindler]

Socratism, can you give a citation on the supposed mistakes in the red shift?

[QED]

MS - Socratism is talking about Arp's quantized red-shift. He believes that the phenomenon is real and not an artifact of sampling error, and he believes that it is proof that red-shift cannot properly be interpreted as a measure of velocity.

[Joe_Sixpack]

FUnny thing is that all recent larger sample size studies of redshift show that there is no quantization as Socratism likes to claim - here is a nice paper to check out:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208117

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103630#post103630)
QED:

MS - Socratism is talking about Arp's quantized red-shift. He believes that the phenomenon is real and not an artifact of sampling error, and he believes that it is proof that red-shift cannot properly be interpreted as a measure of velocity.

I think it is more properly referred to as Tiff's, not Arp's.

[Socratism]

Today @ 07:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103644#post103644)
Joe_Sixpack:

FUnny thing is that all recent larger sample size studies of redshift show that there is no quantization as Socratism likes to claim - here is a nice paper to check out:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208117

I think it is disingenuous to call this my claim, for I simply report what I read and have done no studies about this on my own.

Negative findings have been reported before and later been shown to be statistically flawed, and the "quamtization" phenomenon shown to be present in the same data set.

All this has been discussed in the review papers at:

http://www.metaresearch.org/

We will have to wait a bit until other researchers, including Tiff and Arp perhaps, wade in before drawing final conclusions regarding this more recent study.

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103630#post103630)
QED:

MS - Socratism is talking about Arp's quantized red-shift. He believes that the phenomenon is real and not an artifact of sampling error, and he believes that it is proof that red-shift cannot properly be interpreted as a measure of velocity.

It is more accurate to say that Arp, Tiff, and others believe that not all Red Shift is a function of velocity because it is clear than some portion of it can be attributed to velocity, some to gravitation and some perhaps to photon transit decay (or 5 or 6 other competing explanatory phenomena).

[QED]

Tifft's then.

[QED]

I think it is disingenuous to call this my claim, for I simply report what I read and have done no studies about this on my own.

You do make the claim, whatever basis you have for doing so. You use the claim to validate your other claim that red-shift as velocity is an abandoned interpretation. You are responsible for your claims, no matter how you came to believe their truth.

[jim-kamins]

If the theory of evolution is carried out to its logical end it appears inconsistent with the the Genesis account of what happened. I think it difficult for the hebrew word yom to mean a 24 hour period. Although it can mean a literal day it most assurredly in this case means a definate time period of unknown duration. While Darwin's theory of Natural Selection appears to have some correlation to observeable phenomena the theory of evolution appears to be hogwash.

[QED]

If the theory of evolution is carried out to its logical end it appears inconsistent with the the Genesis account of what happened. [emphasis added]

Bravo. I take it from your post that you are an old-earth creationist. Fair enough. I'm glad that you don't feel it necessary to borrow God's authority by asserting as fact that evolution is inconsistent with the Bible/God's Word. Can you teach that trick to the YEC crowd?

Yes, if evolution and the Bible are both true, then traditional and even "obvious" interptretations of the Bible are wrong. As more and more Christians become aware of the massive collection observational evidence for universal (or near-universal) common descent, more and more of them are choosing to abandon the traditional (or even "obvious" interpretations of Genesis) in favor of interpretations that are consistent with modern science. Perhaps one day you will find a way to reconcile your religious beliefs with mainstream scientific understanding more completely.

Even if you do not, your humility is appreciated. You will find that you can differ on interpretation with theistic evolutionists - on conclusions as well - without having to accuse them of compromising or tearing down "God's Word". That gives you the credibility of honesty and humility.

Best wishes.

[wienerdog]

I take issue with Socratism's claim that the biblical statements about God stretching out the heavens are past tense. First of all, they are in perfect mode, not past tense. Perfect mode is meant to represent actions in their entirety, and thus generally corresponds to English past tense. But this is very generally. In fact, when God is the subject of the verb, the action is frequently put in perfect mode in order to communicate that the action will certainly come to pass. Thus, most of the prophecies in the OT are in perfect mode.

I don't have my Hebrew Bible on hand, but I'll check out whether all of the references to God stretching out the heavens are in perfect mode. Looking quickly at my wife's NIV revealed at least two (Job 9:8 and Isaiah 40:22) which translate the Hebrew as "he stretches out the heavens." I'll verify this and get back to you.

[Marc Schindler]

apop1


some mitochondrial diseases...

basically taken from pub med (could not remember most of the names off top of my head except the first one)

Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (this is most well known i think)

certain mtochondrial encephalomyopathies

Kearns-Sayre syndrome (KSS)


I was aware of some diseases, primarily CNS diseases (some can masquerade as strokes, too), but I was asking about phenotype -- that is, some biological feature. I guess you're saying a disease is a phenotype, and I won't argue.