Logic, Darwin, Dating, and God

[Juvenal]

On the general principle that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission ...

I can do you one better than that, Mike. We can ask the mods to split off our exchange into a separate thread, and make it invite only. Or just start a 1-1 thread, which is customary here. The mods generally set up a separate thread for comments when that's done.

The thread subject has led to enough tangents that I can't be sure what you might consider a rehash. I'm especially interested in discussing circular reasoning (which isn't synonymous with fallacy; examples available on request), with exploring your take on Darwinian dating (which could conceivably include areas where we agree), and the theological implications of the theory of evolution as a whole (which I'm prepared to argue are minimal for Christianity as well as all of the other Abrahamic traditions.)

If a discussion of any of those topics with me in a more relaxed format is interesting to you, just let me know and I'll set the wheels in motion. I might add I am not a specialist in any of these areas, so I'll likely have to look things up as we go along, which is why I'd find it interesting. I'm a math professor, a "lecturer" by profession, if you will, and it's occasionally nice to take a break from just being the teacher. Classes are over for the term, just finals and end-of-term administration to go, so I've got time to give.

As ever, Jesse

Lao if there is a theist only area ( never really checked and don't know if taoist believe in a personal God but still not fundy atheist - I don't think ) I am fine with an open discussion there. As I have said I really don't have a lot of respect for atheists that hang out on Christian forums. They almost always, as here, turn out to be atheist fundies desperate for attention and their own kind of fundy evangeliism because the real world they live in still leaves them in the vast minority. Despite what you might think I don't go around all the time pointing out people's stupidity and ignorance but on the other hand I think its a good thing for the fundies to get a look in the mirror and call them out particularly for what they call out theists for (not to say I wouldn't change some things in my discussion in this thread but not even a quarter of what some would think I should). Anyway I say that to say that I wouldn't want the same atmosphere as here even at the end of an exchange.

Sounds like a WIDE WIDE bunch of topics so a general wide open to theists conversation I would be open to. I have yet to express anywhere here on Tweb my own take on being a OEC and a biblical literalist but if it were only even later in a general comment going to descend into this kind of thread...nuh -huh

So you tell me man. rather than rabble rousering, regardless of your beliefs, you seem cool enough to me. I'd welcome an exchange

By Mike's request, I'd like this thread restricted to theists only, and myself ... and restricted permission to post in this thread in Theology 201. Usual caveats accepted.

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Fine by me. Please remember to get PRIOR approval next time Jesse.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Mikeenders]

Lao whatever you have on your mind then proceed and thanks for setting it up

[Juvenal]

Lao whatever you have on your mind then proceed and thanks for setting it up

You're welcome, Mike. "Lao" gets used a lot around here, but I might mention it's not actually a name. It just means "old" or "ancient" or "perfect hair" or something like that. Nobody knows who "Lao Tzu" really was, which makes the choice of "lao tzu" as an anonymous screen name especially fitting.

Of course, a lot of folks around here just call me the Jerk™, but by rights that should be restricted to folks who know where it's from. This is an "old" board in internet years, started after the original owners were banned from another Christian board more than a decade ago, because the webmaster didn't much like being contradicted. The webmaster of that board gave me my title as he was banning me, too, for much the same reason.

I don't mean to bore you with the history, but maybe it'll help you see how, and why, this is something other than the typical Christian discussion board. It's not actually a Christian site. It's Christian-run, a subtle distinction, but one that makes a real difference. Nobody gets banned here for disagreeing, even caustically, with any of the staff or owners. It's possible, but you have to work really hard to get banned at all.

TWeb was rebooted after a hard-drive meltdown something like a year ago. It's a long way from recovering its old glory, when we had a thousand, or arguably even thousands, of regular posters. It's more like a hundred, or hundreds, now. I'd kind of like to see it grow back into something closer to what it once was. So, to be honest, a lot of what was on my mind was getting you out from under that dogpile over in Nat. Sci., giving you a bit more room to breathe, and encouraging you to stick around.

So, on with the show ... here's a portion of your first response to me that caught my interest.

I am not even a young earth creationists. As i have said more than once I am not in that camp. I even lean old earth but not even close to embracing Darwinism or neo Darwinism of any variant.

That exchange was from December 3. And then I got busy, and before I could follow up, the thread had turned into a flame fest. I reported it, but by then it was already too late.

As I mentioned, I'm not a specialist in any of the topics I introduced in the OP, in the sense that I have no publications in any of those fields, though I have taught classical logics. I am primarily an algebraist; my publications, when I was still publishing, were generally associated with design theory, of the mathematical variety. I'm not a biologist, though I did do my undergrad in bioengineering. Most of what I know of population genetics I picked up from discussions on the long-since-defunct Internet Infidels board, from a former student of Rebecca Cann of Mitochondrial Eve fame. Most of what I know of the age of the earth comes from my reading of Dalrymple's book of that title, after it was recommended to me by Glenn Morton, a Christian, former contributor to YEC publications, and one-time regular contributor here on TWeb, where I first saw his recommendation. Most of what I know of Christian apologetics I've picked up from discussions and book recommendations from my brother, a pastor in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

Personally, I'm a 4.5 billion years, modern synthesis evolutionist, a Neo-Darwinist, if you will. So, that's enough for an intro from me. Would you mind telling me why you lean toward an old earth, and why you have issues with evolution?

I'd like anyone else who'd like to post this thread to do the same, mutatis mutundis.

[Mikeenders]

You're welcome, Mike. "Lao" gets used a lot around here, but I might mention it's not actually a name. It just means "old" or "ancient" or "perfect hair" or something like that. Nobody knows who "Lao Tzu" really was, which makes the choice of "lao tzu" as an anonymous screen name especially fitting.

I'll respond below but I am a bit curious. I just read a post of yours which you claim to be more an atheist and humanist. I assumed at least that your beliefs embraced spiritual elements and wonder how it is that a thread could be limited to theist when the thread starter is an atheist??? I can see with someone who has some spiritual leanings if not a believer in a personal God but not a complete atheist to a personal god and spirituality of any kind. Please do clarify

Personally, I'm a 4.5 billion years, modern synthesis evolutionist, a Neo-Darwinist, if you will. So, that's enough for an intro from me. Would you mind telling me why you lean toward an old earth, and why you have issues with evolution?

Simple. I don;t think the case has been made as the only option and frankly at this point in time its going in reverse. However the word "evolution" by itself is loaded with all kinds of variations. Naturalistic or theistic? ANY kind of evolution or Common ancestry?

Among the few scientific reasons why I am dubious in atheistic Darwinism are

HGT - its completely destroyed the idea that every shared gene (I;m going to be very loose in my references) is either inherited or a mutation

epigenetics - which so far to me shows a lot of front loading and even opens the door that some of the fossils we have found as new species are not.

Molecular convergence and convergence in general - just too much of a just so story - how many times are we at now that the eye has been said to independently evolved? and molecular with actual gene sequence match - convergent? IF we get a few more examples of that to me (of course not to the die hard) darwinsim would be entirely falsified

Natural selection - grew up hearing that was the major driving force of evolution only now major scientists are saying no its not and everyone is trying to pretend it was never pushed as such

Cambrian - I think my issues there should be obvious - a whole lot of just so stories to brush off so many forms appearing pretty close

Time for evolution - time keeps shrinking for almost all species .Two or three times for the year i search for "million years older" and every year ton loads of stories pushing dates back tens even hundred million years. Like it or not Darwinism was sold on changes over tens of millions of years and just this last week we are down to around five mill for dinosaurs

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ly-short-time/

we are getting really close to dating systems margin of error here

Thats not isolated. its an absolutely fair logical charge against Darwinism that evolution requires very long times until they don't have the very long times claimed.

Abiogenesis. Yes when I mention that the atheist jump up and down and scream and giggle that evolution is separate from abiogenesis but claiming complete separation has always been a logic flop for me. Lets say we find out how life originated and its natural. What are the real chances that what we discover from that will have nothing at all that tells anything of evolution of said life as it goes forward?

Plus in analyzing it next to the concept of intelligent design exactly why should it be taken off the table simple because abiogenesis is a weak subject for the darwinist (the non intelligent variant). Its like claiming your opponent has to box with one hand because you can only box with one hand.Okay so abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but it does with intelligent design so - so what?

This last one is I think a HUGE issue for the public - rather than stupid and gullible as the atheistic darwinist like to call the public - the public is rationally looking at the whole picture and want a big picture answer. They also want some semblance of a good answer for reality itself

anyway thats a quick intro to some of the scientific reasons and it all comes down to what you are talking about in regard to "evolution"

Now as a theist and a biblical literalist people like yourself wonder even more at my views so I will address that as well as a separate issue - considering Genesis as an option a lot of people would consider the genesis account falsified - but its shocking when you read it without preconceived notions and realize a great deal of things that even YEC swear as defending the Bible are almost and in some cases FULLY anti - genesis - not in there AT ALL.

Example? the independent creation of animals by God. Not in there. One command and the earth is supposed to take care of the rest for creeping thins. One command and the sea is suppose to take care of the rest etc. Three command in all. The end. Nothing about how the earth does it and not a thing to say that animals are not molded and shaped out of others (kind of even implied in fact)

day 24 hours?? not in there. passage has no ambiguity - day is light - not 24 hours - not a set time. Says so point blank. Earth (and water) itself? - no command whatsoever in sight creating it. Already there before the first day - have no idea a how long

anyway long enough post and thats a quick (or not so quick) answer as an inquiry into my views

[37818]

A Genesis scenario - Genesis 1:1 13.8 billion years ago . . .
Genesis 1:2 about 4.5 billion years ago what would become the crust of the earth cooled . . .
Genesis 1:3- The star we know as the Sun became a star.
Genesis 1:16- What we now know as the Solar Wind blow the debris past the earth so the Sun Moon and star became visible.
66 million years ago the global flood of Noah took place. That date might be off a little.

[Juvenal]

I'll respond below but I am a bit curious. I just read a post of yours which you claim to be more an atheist and humanist. I assumed at least that your beliefs embraced spiritual elements and wonder how it is that a thread could be limited to theist when the thread starter is an atheist??? I can see with someone who has some spiritual leanings if not a believer in a personal God but not a complete atheist to a personal god and spirituality of any kind. Please do clarify

By rights, someone from staff should be clarifying this for you, but I'll share my experience, if that helps. There's a long tradition on TWeb of bending the rules, up to a point, in order to let folks post.

"While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here."

That's from the guidelines for this forum.

"Usual caveats accepted" in my OP was shorthand to the mods that I accept the limits of this forum. That means I agree to not to challenge the basic tenets of Christianity as spelled out in the Nicene creed. It's pretty much understood that means I won't proselytize, either. So, in the sense of accepting Christian presuppositions, for the sake of discussion, I will be posting here as if I was a theist, despite the fact I'm not.

As you might be guessing by now, I've done this before.

It's quite late here, so I'm going to return to the rest of your response tomorrow.

[shunyadragon]

I am a theist, and would like to participate in this thread. Even though I do not believe in the 'traditional framework' of Christianity I will not debate nor question these beliefs in this thread.

[Mikeenders]

A Genesis scenario - Genesis 1:1 13.8 billion years ago . . .
Genesis 1:2 about 4.5 billion years ago what would become the crust of the earth cooled . . .
Genesis 1:3- The star we know as the Sun became a star.
Genesis 1:16- What we now know as the Solar Wind blow the debris past the earth so the Sun Moon and star became visible.
66 million years ago the global flood of Noah took place. That date might be off a little.

Hey 37 . Thats interesting. Thing I would really like to hear more of is the last line there. Dating by genealogies was always a disaster because thats not what they are for but how do you fit 66 million years in there between now and Noah?

Besides that we would have no hard quibble between our views!

Only other thing - I think sometimes theists because of the controversy on this issue put a bit of naturalism into trying to explain Genesis. Long before Darwin every generation saw God creating the universe as a supernatural event. They didn't believe things operated as they do now until the 7th day when God ceased his work. You read some christians today (not you) and they almost have God having to obey the laws of nature rather than creating them. God retrained or subservient to anything but himself would be instantly viewed a HIGH blasphemy a few hundred years ago. Subtle effect of the OE vs YE debate.

[Mikeenders]

By rights, someone from staff should be clarifying this for you,
That's from the guidelines for this forum.

Hey Tao - nope ...you're confusing things. You needing to clarify has nothing whatsoever to do with the guidelines of the forum, its history or any mod. As you quoted me in the OP our gentleman argeement as a condition of conversation was theism or at least spirituality. Thats me and you not board rules. I also have no issue whatsoever with you being an atheist as long as you don't turn out to be one of the Atheist Fundies here but YOU do NEED to clarify - not the mods

I am a theist, and would like to participate in this thread. Even though I do not believe in the 'traditional framework' of Christianity I will not debate nor question these beliefs in this thread.

Shun as far as I can see agreement with Christianity is not a condition of this thread. Personally since I was the one that brought that up all I was looking for is to avoid another extreme dogma OE/YE/Atheist slug fest discussion. The internet is full of those and almost no real conversation as everyone digs in and can grant no point to anyone that is not in their camp.

[HMS_Beagle]

Among the few scientific reasons why I am dubious in atheistic Darwinism are

HGT - its completely destroyed the idea that every shared gene (I;m going to be very loose in my references) is either inherited or a mutation

epigenetics - which so far to me shows a lot of front loading and even opens the door that some of the fossils we have found as new species are not.

Molecular convergence and convergence in general - just too much of a just so story - how many times are we at now that the eye has been said to independently evolved? and molecular with actual gene sequence match - convergent? IF we get a few more examples of that to me (of course not to the die hard) darwinsim would be entirely falsified

Natural selection - grew up hearing that was the major driving force of evolution only now major scientists are saying no its not and everyone is trying to pretend it was never pushed as such

Cambrian - I think my issues there should be obvious - a whole lot of just so stories to brush off so many forms appearing pretty close

Time for evolution - time keeps shrinking for almost all species .Two or three times for the year i search for "million years older" and every year ton loads of stories pushing dates back tens even hundred million years. Like it or not Darwinism was sold on changes over tens of millions of years and just this last week we are down to around five mill for dinosaurs

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ly-short-time/

we are getting really close to dating systems margin of error here

Thats not isolated. its an absolutely fair logical charge against Darwinism that evolution requires very long times until they don't have the very long times claimed.

Abiogenesis. Yes when I mention that the atheist jump up and down and scream and giggle that evolution is separate from abiogenesis but claiming complete separation has always been a logic flop for me. Lets say we find out how life originated and its natural. What are the real chances that what we discover from that will have nothing at all that tells anything of evolution of said life as it goes forward?

Plus in analyzing it next to the concept of intelligent design exactly why should it be taken off the table simple because abiogenesis is a weak subject for the darwinist (the non intelligent variant). Its like claiming your opponent has to box with one hand because you can only box with one hand.Okay so abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but it does with intelligent design so - so what?

This last one is I think a HUGE issue for the public - rather than stupid and gullible as the atheistic darwinist like to call the public - the public is rationally looking at the whole picture and want a big picture answer. They also want some semblance of a good answer for reality itself

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

This area is for theists only

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Mikeenders]

reported.

I think we just saw what I was just talking about. No one has ever and at this point could conclude they have answered all points. HGT, epigenetics, molecular convergence are relatively new areas of study we are still learning more and more about each year. Even funnier - Claiming everything ("every one") which would include a recent discovery of dinosaur evolution about a week ago is on the standard issue Creationist list couldn't be a better example of Atheist Fundyism empty rhetoric that derails every thread they enter.

Finally note the beating of the chest as including "creationist" not just OEC or YE. NO relationship to reality that Tweb is filled with OEC creationists that he has not even come close to "soundly refuted" and vanquished.

It really is a great example of why I wanted this discussion to exclude Atheist Fundies. Their delusions of grandeur rules out any meaningful discussion.

[Jedidiah]

66 million years ago the global flood of Noah took place. That date might be off a little.

Even the most ardent supporter of pure naturalism would place any human being at 66 million years ago. How do you see this? I would place the flood at more like 100,000 years ago.

[shunyadragon]

Even the most ardent supporter of pure naturalism would place any human being at 66 million years ago. How do you see this? I would place the flood at more like 100,000 years ago.

Buy the evidence the floods referenced in the oral traditions and later in early writings are regional and local post glaciation flooding and sea level rise within the past 10,000 years or less. The geologic evidence for these floods indicate that these floods would very destructive and locally devastating to early humans in this period.

Claims of 66 million or even 100,000 years ago are not realistic when there were not any evidence of organized human societies at these times that would hand down oral nor written records. The only evidence is for migratory tribal primitive Neolithic groups of humans and at 66 million years ago you are dealing with very primitive pre-humans.

Some of this conjecture is usually based on the catastrophic filling in the geologic history of the Mediterranean (5.3 million years ago) and the later Black Sea, which trying to take selective evidence and put 10 pounds of Manure in a 5 pound bag. The latest is the flooding of the Mediterranean ~7-8,000 years ago which is far reaching maybe maybe in human memory of oral traditions.

[shunyadragon]

I'll respond below but I am a bit curious. I just read a post of yours which you claim to be more an atheist and humanist. I assumed at least that your beliefs embraced spiritual elements and wonder how it is that a thread could be limited to theist when the thread starter is an atheist??? I can see with someone who has some spiritual leanings if not a believer in a personal God but not a complete atheist to a personal god and spirituality of any kind. Please do clarify


Simple. I don;t think the case has been made as the only option and frankly at this point in time its going in reverse. However the word "evolution" by itself is loaded with all kinds of variations. Naturalistic or theistic? ANY kind of evolution or Common ancestry?

Among the few scientific reasons why I am dubious in atheistic Darwinism are

HGT - its completely destroyed the idea that every shared gene (I;m going to be very loose in my references) is either inherited or a mutation

epigenetics - which so far to me shows a lot of front loading and even opens the door that some of the fossils we have found as new species are not.

Molecular convergence and convergence in general - just too much of a just so story - how many times are we at now that the eye has been said to independently evolved? and molecular with actual gene sequence match - convergent? IF we get a few more examples of that to me (of course not to the die hard) darwinsim would be entirely falsified

Natural selection - grew up hearing that was the major driving force of evolution only now major scientists are saying no its not and everyone is trying to pretend it was never pushed as such

Cambrian - I think my issues there should be obvious - a whole lot of just so stories to brush off so many forms appearing pretty close

Time for evolution - time keeps shrinking for almost all species .Two or three times for the year i search for "million years older" and every year ton loads of stories pushing dates back tens even hundred million years. Like it or not Darwinism was sold on changes over tens of millions of years and just this last week we are down to around five mill for dinosaurs

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ly-short-time/

we are getting really close to dating systems margin of error here

Thats not isolated. its an absolutely fair logical charge against Darwinism that evolution requires very long times until they don't have the very long times claimed.

Abiogenesis. Yes when I mention that the atheist jump up and down and scream and giggle that evolution is separate from abiogenesis but claiming complete separation has always been a logic flop for me. Lets say we find out how life originated and its natural. What are the real chances that what we discover from that will have nothing at all that tells anything of evolution of said life as it goes forward?

Plus in analyzing it next to the concept of intelligent design exactly why should it be taken off the table simple because abiogenesis is a weak subject for the darwinist (the non intelligent variant). Its like claiming your opponent has to box with one hand because you can only box with one hand.Okay so abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but it does with intelligent design so - so what?

This last one is I think a HUGE issue for the public - rather than stupid and gullible as the atheistic darwinist like to call the public - the public is rationally looking at the whole picture and want a big picture answer. They also want some semblance of a good answer for reality itself

anyway thats a quick intro to some of the scientific reasons and it all comes down to what you are talking about in regard to "evolution"

Now as a theist and a biblical literalist people like yourself wonder even more at my views so I will address that as well as a separate issue - considering Genesis as an option a lot of people would consider the genesis account falsified - but its shocking when you read it without preconceived notions and realize a great deal of things that even YEC swear as defending the Bible are almost and in some cases FULLY anti - genesis - not in there AT ALL.

Example? the independent creation of animals by God. Not in there. One command and the earth is supposed to take care of the rest for creeping thins. One command and the sea is suppose to take care of the rest etc. Three command in all. The end. Nothing about how the earth does it and not a thing to say that animals are not molded and shaped out of others (kind of even implied in fact)

day 24 hours?? not in there. passage has no ambiguity - day is light - not 24 hours - not a set time. Says so point blank. Earth (and water) itself? - no command whatsoever in sight creating it. Already there before the first day - have no idea a how long

anyway long enough post and thats a quick (or not so quick) answer as an inquiry into my views

Your post is thick with name calling and very questionable comprehension of science. I will respond to these questionable statements individually. First question is what is your education and qualifications in making these statement concerning concerning subjects like genetics, radiometric dating, evolution, or in general biology and geology.