Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

OT Difficulties - a Dead Horse diversion

124678

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It's not a belief system. It's a scientific theory - a body of evidence and explanations.

    As for what is scientific about it - we can go there. It starts with observations. We observe that:

    * The animals and plants of today are different to those of the past - this is trivially demonatrated; Cretaceous rocks for example contain animals not alive today - pterosaurs, dinosaurs, plesiosaurs. A lot of animal groups alive today are absent - there are birds but none of today's birds. There are no large mammals.
    * We observe that organisms generally produce more offspring than are required for replacement, and that many - most in the majority of species - do not themselves reproduce.
    * Offspring vary slightly amongst themselves

    We conclude that those offspring most suited to their environment have the best chance of reproductive success

    When the environment changes, best fit will change. Therefore the favoured characteristics in a population (those giving rise to reproductive success) will change. Thus the population will change. This is evolution.

    We observe the speed at which this can occur (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610185526.htm)

    Over geological time, we can trace changes in morphology in the fossil record. (http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0001666.html)

    Larger scale descent with modification can be inferred from this, but not demonstrated. Instead, it is demonatrated by other means.

    Firstly, we hypothesise that organisms will show a branch morphological tree (allowing for derived features - for example a whale's flipper is analogous to a mammalian limb rather than a fish fin despite superficial resemblance) and that their DNA and chemical analysis of their proteins will share that nested hierarchy.

    It does, by and large.

    So does the hierarchy created from analysis of endogenous retroviruses. As evolution predicts

    Further, when morphological study of one group - for example amphibians - indicates they derive from another - lovefinned fishes - we predict intermediates will exist. We can work out when they must have lived, and where, and look in the right rocks.

    And find creatures like Tiktaalik. That fish with legs creationists used to mock scientists with (
    http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/f2013/raabe_mic2/facts.htm)

    Nah. No evidence. Pure speculation.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Please enlighten.
    Oh that I were able.
    An abmirably frank piece of rhetoric.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd like MPaul to clarify matters.

    Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.

    We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
    Not denied and irrelevant. No one said evolution caused slavery just that evolutionary thinking helped justify 19 th century imperialism..also the holocaust was certainly enabled by it..survival of the fittest could become domination of the strongest with a bit of sleight of hand. My point is that evolutionary thinking devalues us..leads us into decisions that make us less than imagio dei.

    But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?
    Just to say this is moving the goalposts and is not relevant to the discussion. If you wish to discuss slavery in the Bible start a separate thread.

    How am I moving goalposts? You've said that we should accept the biblical account of earth science but you don't accept it's authority with regard to a bunch of other things. That's a fact.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    .

    Regarding the fruit of Christianity, while there are abuses, let is not forget that pretty well all of the good discoveries of Science and in western European civilisation are based on a view of man as created in God's image or by men who believed it.

    Well, other than crop breeding, antibiotic resistance, immunisation etc - which all depend on an understanding of genetics and evolution that you don't accept.
    By the way, there is no Gish gallop here. I am not jumping from point to unrelated point. It is others shifting the focus of the discussion on to things like the origin of slavery..something I did not bring up.

    No, conveniently you only want to talk about the bits of the Bible you say are authoritative and ignore all the areas of knowledge that you clearly don't accept it as an authority.

    Well, also you want to band around blatently untrue assertions about science and scientists, of course.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    Also, a lot of those 'good discoveries' started off life in the Maghreb and Persia under Muslim rulers. But that's probably too inconvenient to consider.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work
    Is it? The bugs are still bugs though are they not? Is dog breeding also an example of evolution?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    MPaul wrote: »
    antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work
    Is it? The bugs are still bugs though are they not? Is dog breeding also an example of evolution?

    Yes. Artificial rather than natural selection but evolution nevertheless.

    You seem to know very little about something you feel qualified to tell people who've made it their life's study that they're wrong about.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work
    Is it? The bugs are still bugs though are they not? Is dog breeding also an example of evolution?

    Yes. Artificial rather than natural selection but evolution nevertheless.

    You seem to know very little about something you feel qualified to tell people who've made it their life's study that they're wrong about.
    Have you? Really? I think your life’s study is misapplied then.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    hosting
    Kindly knock off the personal comments please, as per C3/4 Neither of you are newbies, so please stick to each other's arguments, and not who 'knows very little' or who's 'misapplied' their life.
    Thanks
    L
    Dead Horses Host
    hosting off
  • MPaul wrote: »
    antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work
    Is it? The bugs are still bugs though are they not?

    Yes, it’s an example of descent with modification, a.k.a. evolution. “Bugs” change to adapt to an antibiotic prevalent environment, developing traits not previously present. I recall you claiming that this was impossible given only mutation and natural selection.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work
    Is it? The bugs are still bugs though are they not?

    Yes, it’s an example of descent with modification, a.k.a. evolution. “Bugs” change to adapt to an antibiotic prevalent environment, developing traits not previously present. I recall you claiming that this was impossible given only mutation and natural selection.

    You misread me then. Bugs mutating is pretty standard. Bugs becoming non bugs would prove something

    @ Louise: Yep, I see your point. Apologies

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    understanding of genetics and evolution that you don't accept
    Why are you equating genetics with evolution? Are you saying genetics is an evolutionary process..mystifying.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work
    Is it? The bugs are still bugs though are they not?

    Yes, it’s an example of descent with modification, a.k.a. evolution. “Bugs” change to adapt to an antibiotic prevalent environment, developing traits not previously present. I recall you claiming that this was impossible given only mutation and natural selection.

    But the are STILL bugs and bugs they remain. If you could show anything more than limited variations like with the finch beaks then you would be talking.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Please enlighten.
    Oh that I were able.
    An abmirably frank piece of rhetoric.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd like MPaul to clarify matters.

    Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.

    We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
    Not denied and irrelevant. No one said evolution caused slavery just that evolutionary thinking helped justify 19 th century imperialism..also the holocaust was certainly enabled by it..survival of the fittest could become domination of the strongest with a bit of sleight of hand. My point is that evolutionary thinking devalues us..leads us into decisions that make us less than imagio dei.

    But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?
    Just to say this is moving the goalposts and is not relevant to the discussion. If you wish to discuss slavery in the Bible start a separate thread.

    How am I moving goalposts? You've said that we should accept the biblical account of earth science but you don't accept it's authority with regard to a bunch of other things. That's a fact.
    You shifted the focus of the discussion. I do not require things of the Bible that it does not claim for itself. As I say, set up another thread regarding slavery if you wish but that would be a tangent here.

    The Bible contains references to slavery. It does not necessarily condone human ownership of humans though. The imperialism of the 19 Century regularly and systematically considered native peoples as inferior. We are still reaping the whirlwind of that and a major driver of it was this idea that they were less 'evolved.' It was not that everyone thought that, but them with the power and the technology sure acted like they did.

  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    The Bible literally condones slavery.

    Nobody considers what it says on slavery to be authoritative today. So everyone is deciding to ignore what it says.

    In the same way I'm ignoring what it says about science.

    Not a tangent, directly full-square on point.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work
    Is it? The bugs are still bugs though are they not?

    Yes, it’s an example of descent with modification, a.k.a. evolution. “Bugs” change to adapt to an antibiotic prevalent environment, developing traits not previously present. I recall you claiming that this was impossible given only mutation and natural selection.

    But the are STILL bugs and bugs they remain. If you could show anything more than limited variations like with the finch beaks then you would be talking.

    If something happened to change bacteria into something multicellular in a human timeframe then evolution would be dead in the water because it doesn't have a mechanism for that.

    If you think that it's difficult for unicellular life to become multicellular then evolution agrees with you; the earliest life for which we have evidence is some 3.5 billion years old - and note it took a billion years from the earth's formation for that to happen - whilst the first multicellular life dates from 600 million years ago. Since an important step on that way was the emergence of eukaryotic organisms (at best evidence currently available) some 2.7 billion years ago, it's fair to say that's not going to happen in the petri dish.

    For evidence of larger scale change, I refer you to my long post from last night.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Please enlighten.
    Oh that I were able.
    An abmirably frank piece of rhetoric.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd like MPaul to clarify matters.

    Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.

    We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
    Not denied and irrelevant. No one said evolution caused slavery just that evolutionary thinking helped justify 19 th century imperialism..also the holocaust was certainly enabled by it..survival of the fittest could become domination of the strongest with a bit of sleight of hand. My point is that evolutionary thinking devalues us..leads us into decisions that make us less than imagio dei.

    But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?
    Just to say this is moving the goalposts and is not relevant to the discussion. If you wish to discuss slavery in the Bible start a separate thread.

    How am I moving goalposts? You've said that we should accept the biblical account of earth science but you don't accept it's authority with regard to a bunch of other things. That's a fact.
    You shifted the focus of the discussion. I do not require things of the Bible that it does not claim for itself. As I say, set up another thread regarding slavery if you wish but that would be a tangent here.

    The Bible contains references to slavery. It does not necessarily condone human ownership of humans though. The imperialism of the 19 Century regularly and systematically considered native peoples as inferior. We are still reaping the whirlwind of that and a major driver of it was this idea that they were less 'evolved.' It was not that everyone thought that, but them with the power and the technology sure acted like they did.

    And has already been said, the abuses to which people put any scientific model does not speak to its truth. We have lived under threat of nuclear annihiliation for many decades but nuclear fusion still works. And where people did adopt evolutionary ideas to bolster their racism (which you have asserted but not evidenced) those ideas only replaced earlier religious based ones. It's an argument from adverse consequences at best, and if you applied it to Christianity you'd also have to reject that; given that you don't it appears we also have special pleading.

    I haven't devoted my life to life sciences; I was speaking of the millions who have who you glibly assume must be wrong because you know you're right. It's hubris.
  • Yeah but bugs remain bugs and don't turn into giraffes, Karl. Ergo evolutionary science is wrong.

    Obvs.
  • On the other hand, I wonder how Creationists cope with GM. Crops have been produced and bred using genetic material from other species.

    So hasn't this created a "new" species? Isn't a crop plant with the gene from a jellyfish demonstrably a different species from either?*

    Haven't then crop geneticists done something that only God can do?

    * I remember studying plant cladistics and the definitions of species. Happy days.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Yeah but bugs remain bugs and don't turn into giraffes, Karl. Ergo evolutionary science is wrong.

    Obvs.

    I love the way creationists demand scientists present evidence which would actually pretty much kill evolutionary theory stone dead.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Yeah but bugs remain bugs and don't turn into giraffes, Karl. Ergo evolutionary science is wrong.

    Obvs.

    I love the way creationists demand scientists present evidence which would actually pretty much kill evolutionary theory stone dead.

    It is daft and ignorant, probably wilfully by at least some of them.

    Of course one can observe evolutionary changes in microbes. Of course given enough time, the changes and impacts of them would be bigger.

    If evolution didn't happen, one wouldn't observe it in microbes. And immunisation wouldn't be a thing.
  • Darwin's ideas were not directly used for some of the more egregious abuses of scientific knowledge. The master race ideas were bolstered by the development of theories on hereditary and eugenics by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton - which are flawed.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Meanwhile, last night I posted a long post containing a link to evidence of fish to amphibian transition, then this morning we're asked for something better than finch beaks.

    Creationist tactic #1 - ignore presented evidence.

    #2 is rehash already presented arguments without addressing the replies thereto - in this case "racists cited evolution so it's false"
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    Mr Cheesy:The Bible literally condones slavery

    I agree there is the possibility in the OT for people that are impoverished,to sell themselves in order to survive. This was a temporary condition. They and other debtors were to be released on the year of jubilee.

    There is the case of the Gibeonites who lied to Joshua to survive and were put to forced labour. Later, we see their descendants in Saul’s time and we see they had become integrated more or less, at least enough to demand restitution because of Saul’s treatment of them.

    In the NT, the ancient Romans had slaves. The only mention of this by Paul was to acknowledge this reality in order to clarify the position of a slave who became a believer. The clear teaching was for such a one not to rebel but to become free if possible. In the ancient Roman world there was a mechanism for this. A special status of ‘freed man’ existed and owners could free slaves as a reward or by other means, freedom could be bought.

    So no, slavery, in the vein of the kidnapped African working the Louisiana cotton fields and accompanying stereotype is not seen in scripture or in any manner condoned.

    You are simply mistaken to assert that the Bible condones slavery or that God allows it in any circumstance other than that outlined. The fact that misguided Christians use isolated texts at different times in history to justify the unjustifiable is beside the point. There have always been abuses.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    The Bible literally condones slavery.

    No amount of special pleading or semantic sophistry can wish it away.

    I'd much prefer it that it wasn't so, especially in the NT, but there it is, right in the text.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    MPaul wrote: »

    I agree there is the possibility in the OT for people that are impoverished,to sell themselves in order to survive. This was a temporary condition. They and other debtors were to be released on the year of jubilee.

    OT slaves had not sold themselves.
    There is the case of the Gibeonites who lied to Joshua to survive and were put to forced labour. Later, we see their descendants in Saul’s time and we see they had become integrated more or less, at least enough to demand restitution because of Saul’s treatment of them.

    So slavery was condoned. How about that.
    In the NT, the ancient Romans had slaves. The only mention of this by Paul was to acknowledge this reality in order to clarify the position of a slave who became a believer. The clear teaching was for such a one not to rebel but to become free if possible. In the ancient Roman world there was a mechanism for this. A special status of ‘freed man’ existed and owners could free slaves as a reward or by other means, freedom could be bought.

    So much to unravel, but in brief, nowhere does it say that slavery is wrong and that owners should release slaves.
    So no, slavery, in the vein of the kidnapped African working the Louisiana cotton fields and accompanying stereotype is not seen in scripture or in any manner condoned.

    Slavery - and the conditions by which one person can own another - is expressly discussed and condoned throughout the OT.

    You don't believe in slavery, therefore you do not take this parts of scripture as authoritative. The end.
    You are simply mistaken to assert that the Bible condones slavery or that God allows it in any circumstance other than that outlined. The fact that misguided Christians use isolated texts at different times in history to justify the unjustifiable is beside the point. There have always been abuses.

    Slavery is not abuse in the OT. It is literally considered a part of normal life.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Meanwhile, last night I posted a long post containing a link to evidence of fish to amphibian transition, then this morning we're asked for something better than finch beaks.

    Creationist tactic #1 - ignore presented evidence.

    #2 is rehash already presented arguments without addressing the replies thereto - in this case "racists cited evolution so it's false"

    I'm not sure it is deliberate. I guess what's happening is that we are talking over @MPaul's head so he isn't replying.

    But it is frustrating, a bit like two people talking Welsh and someone else coming up and saying "that's not Welsh" when they clearly only know a few words. There is nothing the Welsh-speakers can do to persuade the other that he doesn't know Welsh.
  • Darwin's ideas were not directly used for some of the more egregious abuses of scientific knowledge. The master race ideas were bolstered by the development of theories on hereditary and eugenics by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton - which are flawed.

    Eh, I don't know if this is true - evolution has grown beyond Darwin and has spawned directly or indirectly a lot of stupidity like Social Darwinism, which in turn had various impacts in 20 century European thought.

    But it is daft to point directly to a neutral idea and then blame it for later abuses.

    We don't blame those people who knew about cockroaches, rats and vermin for the way that their definitions were later used to dehumanise people. Why would we? That's daft.

    People who wanted to dehumanise others picked up whichever ideas were to hand to justify their murderous rage.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Meanwhile, last night I posted a long post containing a link to evidence of fish to amphibian transition, then this morning we're asked for something better than finch beaks.

    Creationist tactic #1 - ignore presented evidence.

    #2 is rehash already presented arguments without addressing the replies thereto - in this case "racists cited evolution so it's false"
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a belief system. It's a scientific theory - a body of evidence and explanations.

    As for what is scientific about it - we can go there. It starts with observations. We observe that:

    * The animals and plants of today are different to those of the past - this is trivially demonatrated; Cretaceous rocks for example contain animals not alive today - pterosaurs, dinosaurs, plesiosaurs. A lot of animal groups alive today are absent - there are birds but none of today's birds. There are no large mammals.
    * We observe that organisms generally produce more offspring than are required for replacement, and that many - most in the majority of species - do not themselves reproduce.
    * Offspring vary slightly amongst themselves

    We conclude that those offspring most suited to their environment have the best chance of reproductive success

    When the environment changes, best fit will change. Therefore the favoured characteristics in a population (those giving rise to reproductive success) will change. Thus the population will change. This is evolution.

    We observe the speed at which this can occur (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610185526.htm)

    Over geological time, we can trace changes in morphology in the fossil record. (http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0001666.html)

    Larger scale descent with modification can be inferred from this, but not demonstrated. Instead, it is demonatrated by other means.

    Firstly, we hypothesise that organisms will show a branch morphological tree (allowing for derived features - for example a whale's flipper is analogous to a mammalian limb rather than a fish fin despite superficial resemblance) and that their DNA and chemical analysis of their proteins will share that nested hierarchy.

    It does, by and large.

    So does the hierarchy created from analysis of endogenous retroviruses. As evolution predicts

    Further, when morphological study of one group - for example amphibians - indicates they derive from another - lovefinned fishes - we predict intermediates will exist. We can work out when they must have lived, and where, and look in the right rocks.

    And find creatures like Tiktaalik. That fish with legs creationists used to mock scientists with (
    http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/f2013/raabe_mic2/facts.htm)

    Nah. No evidence. Pure speculation.
    I think you know that the same rocks and same fossils are claimed by both sides of the divide as evidence for their view. This has all been rehashed many times. It is not a matter of waving away evidence but one of finding feasible explanations for the evidence we see.

    You are convinced by the evolutionary explanation. However this bluntly contradicts scripture. The creationists..the ones you call lying weasels, demand primarily, that the Bible is true. Perhaps in some cases this is because of fear as you claim, I do not know. I do know that for me it is not any kind of insecurity but a matter of knowing God’s reality and power. I know God is real and that the Bible is true. It is really, then, a simple matter to conclude that deep time and evolutionary theory is wrong. Once you know what you know,you just know it.

    A further point is that academia demands an acceptance of evolution and no career scientist can survive as such if they query the truth of the evolutionary system. I think that this explains the reaction of Schweitzer to her own discovery of soft tissue in a so called 70million year bone, an oft repeated discovery since she saw it. She and others like her can not reach the obvious conclusion viz the bone was not that old. It would cost them everything to go against the zeitgeist. If deep time is a fiction, there is no evolution and that discovery showed just that. However, to admit such is unthinkable. The posturing about iron as a preserver continues of course. I do not think that is credible. 70 million years?
  • But the bible teaching on slavery can be safely ignored.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Once you know what you know,you just know it.

    And that's it right there. Despite all the evidence and despite the theories actually working in tangible ways, you just know what you know because you know it.

    I just know that aliens exist. What's the difference?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    No, the rocks and fossils are not claimed as evidence for the creationist view. Creationists come up with alternative explanations, but that is not the same thing.

    Schweitzer did not conclude her fossils were actually young for the very good reason that she knew perfectly well the compelling reasons for accepting the rock in which they were found to be Cretaceous - ie at least 65 million years old.

    Rejecting the antiquity of the earth does require quite a talent in believing five impossible things before breakfast. You do realise that you to be right, virtually everything we think we know about geology has to be wrong. Which is odd, because it works really well for predicting the location of fossil fuels deep in the earth.

    Doc Tor did his PhD on ancient meteorites IIRC - I'm sure he'd furnish you with a copy so you can explain why his dating methods are all wrong.
  • The ungodly lies are more useful than the godly truth. How about that.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited October 2018
    I'm going to return to my argument about deceptiveness. It is a common assertion in dispensational schemes that scripture is perspicuous i.e. subject to plain meaning interpretation. It is also common to just about all understandings of scripture that deceptiveness is the prerogative of the devil and his minions. He is the father of lies. It is also common territory that God spoke creation into being, somehow or other and so, having emanated from God, the created order is an expression of His essential nature.

    So how can the evidence of the created order be deceptive? The evidence for the unimaginably vast size and vast age of the universe is ubiquitous. The speed of light is a proven universal benchmark. That is a perspicuous reading of the natural order.

    And similar arguments apply to the age of rocks and their related embedded fossils. A perspicuous reading of the the natural order leads inevitably to that conclusion.

    Also, see this link again. In many ways, the most remarkable evidence relates to the close dating (c 4.5 billion years) of meteorite rocks and rock samples from the moon, using more than one dating technique. Short of a non-perspicuous explanation, the evidence for the great age of the earth and the much greater age of the observable universe is conclusive.

    Why should we not regard this evidence as perspicuous and authoritative? Why should we give credence to special pleading that God must have somehow meant His spoken creative order to deceive us about this evidence for the earth's great age? Why should the written Word be free from deception but the spoken Word (the created order) be full of evidence which would mislead an honest person about its age?

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    Even if the Earth was crated 10,000 years ago, it still doesn't explain the geochronology of meteorites. Having sat through an AIG 'lecture' on how radiometric dating can be altered by environmental factors - as if my undergraduate geophysics unit hadn't already covered that in nit-picking detail - one simple question from me regarding the startling unanimity of results from chrondritic meteorites (they all fall within 100,000 years of each other, around the 4.65by mark - a result which I still find frankly boggling) leaves the lecturer stumbling.

    It's not that these people don't know of these findings. It's the inconvenience of them that embarrasses them. A bit like slavery in the Bible, I suppose.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    So no, slavery, in the vein of the kidnapped African working the Louisiana cotton fields and accompanying stereotype is not seen in scripture or in any manner condoned.
    Now it’s you who is moving the goalposts. The claim was that slavery—slavery in general—is condoned in Scripture. You’re trying to rebut that by redifining or limiting the kind of slavery being considered.

    What you haven’t answered is how—given that the transatlantic slave trade began 400+ years before publication of On the Origin of Species, given that On the Origin of Species was published decades after the end of the transatlantic slave trade and on the eve of the American Civil War, and given that the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery in the US was ratified 9 years after publication of On the Origin of Species—this assertion by you can possibly be accurate:
    MPaul wrote: »
    Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
    How exactly was slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism bolstered by acceptance of a scientific theory that no one had heard of yet?

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »

    Slavery is not abuse in the OT. It is literally considered a part of normal life.
    Really, your comments seem irrational to me. The bottom line is that God in the Bible, does not condone slavery in any stereotypical sense of the word. He does not approve of one person being able to buy or sell another as a chattel.

    The Bible is a record of human behaviour as well as a divine revelation. Sure humans subjugated each other in history. The closest thing to it is the way extreme poverty was handled within Israel. This was that the bond servant who had to sell himself into servitude to survive, was to be freed at jubilee but technically he was not a slave.

    God did not approve of slavery at all if one looks at where it is touched on. None of the Mosaic laws allow for personal ownership of one person by another.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Nick Tamen:How exactly was slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism bolstered by acceptance of a scientific theory that no one had heard of yet?
    This is getting silly. I think there were many justifications in the 19 Century for versions of eugenics that preceded Darwin. The undeniable point is only that evolution reinforced them.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    And yet in the 150 years which follow, acceptance of evolution grows whilst tolerance of racist theories has decreased dramatically. Funnily enough it held out longest in the American Deep South, where opposition to evolution was and is strongest.

    Tl;dr version - you're talking out of the wrong end of your digestive tract.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Even if the Earth was crated 10,000 years ago, it still doesn't explain the geochronology of meteorites. Having sat through an AIG 'lecture' on how radiometric dating can be altered by environmental factors - as if my undergraduate geophysics unit hadn't already covered that in nit-picking detail - one simple question from me regarding the startling unanimity of results from chrondritic meteorites (they all fall within 100,000 years of each other, around the 4.65by mark - a result which I still find frankly boggling) leaves the lecturer stumbling.

    It's not that these people don't know of these findings. It's the inconvenience of them that embarrasses them. A bit like slavery in the Bible, I suppose.
    I cannot discuss technical stuff. AIG does have an article on meteorite ages by Andrew Snelling.https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/radioisotope-dating-meteorites-v-isochron-ages-groups-meteorites/
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    MPaul wrote: »
    God did not approve of slavery at all if one looks at where it is touched on. None of the Mosaic laws allow for personal ownership of one person by another.
    Yeah, about that...
    Exodus 21
    When you buy a Hebrew slave
    When a man sells his daughter as a slave
    I appreciate that Hebrew slavery was slightly different (and if you can point to where a Jubilee actually happened, I'd be interested), but really. Those quotes above are literally (...) God speaking to Moses, and it follows directly after the 10 Commandments. The ones in the Bible, not the Ship ones.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Karl LB: No, the rocks and fossils are not claimed as evidence for the creationist view. Creationists come up with alternative explanations, but that is not the same thing.

    Schweitzer did not conclude her fossils were actually young for the very good reason that she knew perfectly well the compelling reasons for accepting the rock in which they were found to be Cretaceous - ie at least 65 million years old
    On the first point here, why is it not the same thing? They have the absolute bottom line that any conclusion must accord with their preconception that the Bible teaches a young earth but in an up front way. Similarly your view is adamant that the fossil evidence must show deep time.

    You actually have two very entrenched siege mentalities behind both of the viewpoints.

    On the second point, you are really coming back to the old circle identified by Duane Gish. Viz, We know how old the rocks are because of the fossils and we know how old the fossils are because of the rocks. I think what Schweitzer discovered is not so easily explained as she or other evolutionary biologists would like it to be.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    I agree there is the possibility in the OT for people that are impoverished,to sell themselves in order to survive. This was a temporary condition. They and other debtors were to be released on the year of jubilee.
    MPaul wrote: »
    Really, your comments seem irrational to me. The bottom line is that God in the Bible, does not condone slavery in any stereotypical sense of the word. He does not approve of one person being able to buy or sell another as a chattel.

    The Bible is a record of human behaviour as well as a divine revelation. Sure humans subjugated each other in history. The closest thing to it is the way extreme poverty was handled within Israel. This was that the bond servant who had to sell himself into servitude to survive, was to be freed at jubilee but technically he was not a slave.

    God did not approve of slavery at all if one looks at where it is touched on. None of the Mosaic laws allow for personal ownership of one person by another.

    This kind of legerdemain is commonplace with various slavery apologists. The Israelites had two different forms of forced labor, one for fellow Israelites and one for everyone else. They maintain the pretense that the forced labor of for other Israelites, which is more akin to what we'd describe as indentured servitude or debt slavery, is the only form described in the Bible and ignore the rest.

    Here's how to use your fellow Israelites as forced labor:
    If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

    So, not a picnic, but not a permanent enslavement either. How do non-Israelites fare under God's law? Here's the Biblical passage that immediately follows the bit about Israelite forced labor.
    Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    Now this may be overly literalistic, but that sounds a lot like God's law for "personal ownership of one person by another", for life and subject to being inherited by others. It also sounds a lot like the kind of slavery practiced by various New World colonial powers.
    MPaul wrote: »
    On the second point, you are really coming back to the old circle identified by Duane Gish. Viz, We know how old the rocks are because of the fossils and we know how old the fossils are because of the rocks.

    Never heard of radiometric dating, then?
  • I was thinking of Hagar (who reminds me of microbiology class - for rather childish reason) and Ishmael. Hagar was - if memory serves - an Egyptian slave.

    Not only was she Abraham's property, the the extent that her progency was (initially) considered his, she's also disposable, cast out when she's no longer needed.

    If that doesn't sound like American-style slavery, where families were split up and children sold like cattle - I'm not sure what does.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    Well, the rest of us having been talking about it for a couple of days. So more than enough time for MPaul to become an expert in it and point out its flaws to us.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    MPaul wrote: »
    Karl LB: No, the rocks and fossils are not claimed as evidence for the creationist view. Creationists come up with alternative explanations, but that is not the same thing.

    Schweitzer did not conclude her fossils were actually young for the very good reason that she knew perfectly well the compelling reasons for accepting the rock in which they were found to be Cretaceous - ie at least 65 million years old
    On the first point here, why is it not the same thing? They have the absolute bottom line that any conclusion must accord with their preconception that the Bible teaches a young earth but in an up front way. Similarly your view is adamant that the fossil evidence must show deep time.

    Nope, see that's where you are just plain-and-stinky wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

    Let me educate you a little on the history of geology.

    William "Strata" Smith is justifiably held to be one of the fathers of geology and his insights were one of the reasons people came to accept that the world is far, far older than a few thousand years old.

    Now, see, the thing is that he never set out to show the world was old. In fact, he was a surveyor, employed to determine where to build canals in the late 18 century (way, way before Origin of the Species). And, by chance he happened to be working in England - which has some of the most complicated geology anywhere.

    So as part of this work, he not only discovered the feindishly complicated story of England's geology, he attempted to map it. And as part of that, he was able to put forward the idea that the rocks were in strata like pages in a book, and by measuring the thickness of the rock strata.. he and others were able to show with fairly rudamentary mathematics that the beds must be older than a few thousand years.

    The point being that no geologist since Strata Smith wants the thing to be old. It is the evidence that points to an old earth, whether you want it to or not.

    William Smith walked the country, measured the strata and proved to his own, and eventually everyone else's satisfaction, that one could construct a massive geological model of sequential rocks that can only have been laid down over a very long time.

    If you don't believe this, you are saying that the plain observable facts of geology are lies.

    And quite honestly, unless you've spent your life studying and walking the strata like William Smith, I don't think you are in any position to say that.
    You actually have two very entrenched siege mentalities behind both of the viewpoints.

    Well, there is a position based on *nothing* and there is a contrary position based on observable facts. The latter is "entrenched" because it is a repeatable, measurable fact. You can literally go out with a long tape and prove (at least partly) for yourself.

    And nobody with a long tape that has bothered to do that thinks the earth is a few thousand years old.
    On the second point, you are really coming back to the old circle identified by Duane Gish. Viz, We know how old the rocks are because of the fossils and we know how old the fossils are because of the rocks. I think what Schweitzer discovered is not so easily explained as she or other evolutionary biologists would like it to be.

    You are coming at this from the wrong angle. Forget all the dating for the moment, the first experiment is simply proving to yourself that there is more sedimentary material than can possibly be laid down in a few thousand years. You can do this with a tape and preferably a geological map.

    From that understanding, it is then possible to refine "it's really old" into estimates of exactly how old using various other methods. But critically, those methods only have any power if one first accepts the simple truth "oh, right. It is really really old."



  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Indeed. Schweitzer knew how old the rocks were because of geology, not biology. Specifically with late Cretaceous dinosaurs we're helped by the eminently datable K/T boundary (https://phys.org/news/2008-04-refining-date-kt-boundary-dinosaur.html)

    Schweitzer is in fact an evangelical Christian. Despite that she sees no reason to question the age of her samples. Is it just possible that she knows a bit more about it than us?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Now this may be overly literalistic, but that sounds a lot like God's law for "personal ownership of one person by another", for life and subject to being inherited by others. It also sounds a lot like the kind of slavery practiced by various New World colonial powers
    https://christiancourier.com/articles/800-what-about-the-bible-and-slavery
    Yes looking at this it is obvious you are correct. Slavery was sanctioned in ancient Israel if the slaves were aliens. I guess the treatment of slaves is an unknown thing. There is obviously a more humane view of the subject in the NT. (Philemon). The law of Moses also had references to divorce but Jesus’ words on this subject suggest it was allowed rather than approved of. I suspect the situations are similar.

    Regarding Hagar, her son Ishmael would have been the inheritor of Abraham’s possessions if the normal course of events prevailed and Hagar then,though certainly subservient had at least concubine status.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    The normal course of events being.. if she wasn't an Egyptian slave.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    Also: Jesus thought having slaves was ok if you treated them right.

    Erm.

    Edit: I'm now in anguish - at the thought that we've persuaded MPaul that There Is Nothing Unbiblical About Slavery And Therefore It Is Permissible.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Mr Cheesy: one first accepts the simple truth "oh, right. It is really really old."
    You may or may not be familiar with all the reasoning behind the young earth view but they do have reasoning. I choose to believe the Bible on this even if it exposes me to the ridicule of such as yourself. The accusation that creationists are in denial about a ‘simple truth’ as you put it, seems to me akin to playing the man. It is essentially bullying mockery of a contrary view, a view that you must take on the sayso of others as we all must. These others are part of a world view that is dedicated to fudge the truth about spiritual things. As scripture says:
    “The whole earth is in the power of the evil one.”

    Without the flood, the Bible is utterly discredited. If that is the case, human existence is a pointless cycle of ‘dust to dust’. The reason I do not accept this is because I have experienced the supernatural on many occasions. Your mileage may vary Mr Cheesy but I guess we will never agree on this one.
This discussion has been closed.