Research using entomological radar has found that migratory insects such as butterflies and moths perform their own flight planning in order to optimize their flights across continents. They select the right time to ride the wind, and they determine the right altitude and flight heading to reach their destination (rather than where the wind is going). As one of the researchers explained:
Migratory butterflies and moths have evolved an amazing capacity to use favourable tailwinds. By flying at the heights where the wind currents are fastest, migratory moths can travel between their summer and winter grounds in just a few nights.
And what is the evidence that this amazing capacity evolved? What mutations produced it? And how did evolution create the ability of the insects know when to start their journey and where they should go? You know the answer: “We’re not sure but we know they evolved because evolution is a fact.” Religion drives science and it matters.
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"And what is the evidence that this amazing capacity evolved? What mutations produced it? And how did evolution create the ability of the insects know when to start their journey and where they should go?"
======
None of these questions need be addressed in any Science article or research paper since the dogma has already been established as a mandated fact and the faithful simply understand that the Priesthood of this Church knows what they are talking about by invoking such "Stuff Happens Law" expressions like "have evolved an amazing capacity".
Anyone's protest or questioning of the purposedly vague faith-based statement will be regarded as a heretic.
The article also had this interesting prediction.
SCIENCEDAILY:
"Climate change is likely to significantly alter the frequency of insect migrants, . . "
Actually something more devastating and most likely will occur first before climate change pressures do their evolutionary wonders.
ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily
Science News
Share Blog Cite
Print Email Bookmark
Toxic Pollen From Widely Planted, Genetically Modified Corn Can Kill Monarch Butterflies, Cornell Study Shows
Or yet another brilliant danger may even beat that one. Brought to you by the new and improved (scientific discovery) of Industrial Forestry practiced down in Mexico where their winter home habitat is in danger of disappearing.
Habitat Destruction May Wipe Out Monarch Butterfly Migration
Since humans are nothing more than animals and a part of nature, then any such extinctions should be considered normal and natural in the evolutionary flow of things with no one to blame or at fault.
Religion and Money drive science and it shows.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteAs one of the researchers explained:
“Migratory butterflies and moths have evolved an amazing capacity to use favourable tailwinds.”
And what is the evidence that this amazing capacity evolved?
Is there an alternative explanation for the origin of this capacity? Is it supported by evidence?
Let's have it!
Have you heard of Monte Carlo and simulated annealing methods of minimization, Cornelius? These fairly dumb computer algorithms are able to minimize complex functions through a combination of randomness and selection. Optimization of flight paths seems to be a similar process: butterflies are free to choose other paths, but those which spend the least effort have more resources left for producing offspring.
ReplyDeleteIdentification of specific mutations that are involved in such optimization is not even an interesting question. It's a bit like trying to understand thermodynamics by tracking the path of every molecule in a gas. It does not work.
Oleg:
ReplyDelete"These fairly dumb computer algorithms are able to minimize complex functions through a combination of randomness and selection."
========
Let me guess. A computer model mimicing the reality of what they think occurs in nature, but it first requires an intelligent designer to begin with for it to even function at all. But after that it requires no further interference from any intelligent imput ???
I've heard this somewhere before. Oh yes.
Dave Mullenix:
"When you're making a model, you have to intelligently construct an apparatus that mimics some feature of the natural world that you wish to simulate."
"Once you've done that, you start your model and watch the simulation run without further intelligent input. In other words, all of the intelligence goes into creating a model that mimics some natural process and then you start that process and let it run to see how it works."
Genesis chapter one.
Pedant quoting Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteCornelius:
"As one of the researchers explained:
“Migratory butterflies and moths have evolved an amazing capacity to use favourable tailwinds.”
And what is the evidence that this amazing capacity evolved?"
------------------
Pedant:
"Is there an alternative explanation for the origin of this capacity?
==================
First off, Cornelius wasn't quoting or referencing any evidence. NONE WAS GIVEN. He simply quoted what was nothing more that a bolded faith-based statement injected into the article. What he was asking for was the actual evidence behind the vague faith-based statement.
Eocene,
ReplyDeleteIf you are not familiar with the Monte Carlo method I suggest that you read about it first. It's a simple algorithm combining randomness and selection that is capable of finding minima much more efficiently than a blind search. It does not rely on the knowledge of the programmer about the function that is being minimized.
Oleg:
ReplyDelete"If you are not familiar with the Monte Carlo method I suggest that you read about it first. It's a simple algorithm combining randomness and selection that is capable of finding minima much more efficiently than a blind search. It does not rely on the knowledge of the programmer about the function that is being minimized."
=========
This point is who designed these dumb programs as you originally labled them ???
Oh yes here it is:
Monte Carlo Method - History
Now if it wasn't an intelligent designer who created the algorithm(what you believe is nothing more than a dumb algorithm program) program in the butterfly's brain, then if scientist's had to actually create a dumb algorithm program for their scientific research, then exactly how or what blind undirected unguided forces invented the dumb program in the Butterfly's brain and how do you actually know that happened ???
You are not comprehending what I am saying, Eocene.
ReplyDeleteA Monte Carlo program and a population of butterflies rely on random variation and selection in order to get to a function minimum. As long as there is variation and selection pressure, finding a minimum is not all that difficult.
Would you like to dispute that?
Privet tovarish oleg, and good luck trying to make Eocene understand the concept of a model - something ID-ers appear to have a massive blind spot for. They probably also confuse the opinion of a character in a novel with the opinion of the writer, and look what happened to Salman Rushdie.
ReplyDeleteOleg:
ReplyDelete"You are not comprehending what I am saying, Eocene.
A Monte Carlo program and a population of butterflies rely on random variation and selection in order to get to a function minimum. As long as there is variation and selection pressure, finding a minimum is not all that difficult."
========
No I'm not missing any point on this. If you read the entire article Cornelius referenced, the mechanism used by the butterfly were anything but simple or dumb. There is one more vague reference to evolution and it is here.
Science Daily:
"The reported study . . used two sets of specially-designed radar equipment to observe migrating butterflies . . to describe the sophisticated flight behaviours that they have evolved."
So how do such "sopisticated flight behaviors" which employ a "compass sense" and allow them to navigate 100+ KM per hour winds and the ability " . . to make subtle adjustments to their headings so that they partially correct for wind-induced drift away from their preferred direction of travel" to a purposed direct destination ???
Then the article further mentions their own computer model called "NAME" which tracked and explained what they do and that it was anything but RANDOM.
" . . to demonstrate that the flight behaviours observed result in migrants travelling nearly twice as far and closer to their preferred direction as an insect just randomly drifting downwind."
So how did those intelligent encoded informational instructions or (in the article's OWN WORDS) sophisticated program develope in the first place by nothing more than blind undirected forces without purpose ???
But for the sake of arguement, let's say that the dumb simple program for Monte Carlo and Butterfly navigation are identical and accomplish the same thing. They are still both informational directing programs for accomplishing a purpose, the human one being intelligently designed, but the far more sophisticated one belonging to the butterfly's brain just happened by chance for no intended purpose for the butterfly other than luck ???
Troy:
ReplyDelete"Privet tovarish oleg, and good luck trying to make Eocene understand the concept of a model - something ID-ers appear to have a massive blind spot for."
=========
Read the article again Genius. Oleg was the one who said "these fairly dumb computer algorithms" are what run the program, but the article itself didn't say this. It said it's actually a "sophisticated program" by which the butterfly uses to navigate it's "preferred (chosen/selected) destination" and has nothing to do with randomness as in a seemingly observed randomly flying insect. Things are accomplished by specific and purposeful descision making, not some randomly acting robotic program nonsense.
Then the question still remains cleverly and conveniently avoided, how does such a sophisticated informationally directed mechanisms develope from nothing more than blind undirected forces of luck for no purpose or intent as dogmatically insisted upon by your faith-based Church ??? And if you just say it does, then how do you know that ???
Eocene,
ReplyDeleteI've read the original Science article, rather than the popular account in Science Daily.
Yes, the navigational mechanisms used by the butterflies are amazing, but that's not the point of Hunter's post. He is wondering about the butterflies' ability to compute the optimal path. I am commenting on that. Given what I know about algorithms based on random variation and selection, that feat is not all that amazing.
From the paper:
ReplyDelete"To evaluate the effect of these observed flight behaviors on migration trajectories, we modeled the flight pathways of migrants using the U.K. Meteorological Office’s atmospheric dispersion model NAME (16), which simulates the transport of wind-borne particles. We ran two simulations, assuming migrants either were inert particles passively transported downwind or had A. gamma–like flight behavior (and thus were modeled with an additional flight vector of 5 m/s toward their actual heading on each night and were constrained to the altitude of the fastest winds). By contrast, the inert particles were released at the same altitude as moths, but allowed to disperse stochastically throughout the boundary layer. Model simulations of 100 inert particles, or 100 moths, were run for 30 nights in fall 2003 and 2006 when mass return migrations of A. gamma occurred (table S4).
The addition of these two simple behavioral rules to the model had a considerable impact on migration trajectories"
How hard is it to encode two simple behavioral rules in a small neural network? Hint: not hard.
Genetic variation for simple behavioral rules has also been observed. Indeed, if I recall correctly, even genetic variation in migration routes of birds. Research by some professor at a Max Planck Institute for Ornithology a while ago.
Oleg:
ReplyDelete"Yes, the navigational mechanisms used by the butterflies are amazing, but that's not the point of Hunter's post."
========
What Hunter is refering to as he does in most of these articles found in his blogs, are all these vague word insertions of the term "Evolution" without ever explaining how they arrived at that conclusion other than bold faith-based statement PRINTING to satify the Panel of Peers. Evolutionary credit is always given in such studies without any proof other than the mere purposeful act of just saying it is so.
Troy said: “How hard is it to encode two simple behavioral rules in a small neural network? Hint: not hard.”
ReplyDeleteHow hard is it to make a neural network that can perform at least the number of calculations necessary to drive a mechanical animal such as this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHJJQ0zNNOM
And as amazing as that is, please note that this is a very cheap imitation of what insects can actually do.
Encoding behavioral rules (however simple) into an insect brain is just icing on the cake.
Oleg said
ReplyDeleteIt's a simple algorithm combining randomness and selection that is capable of finding minima much more efficiently than a blind search
I program PLCs and robots.There is nothing simple in a "simple algorithm". I do not want any randomness in my programs, wiring ,sensors, etc I fight randomness daily with all I can.
ID iot here - no randomness allowed!
We should make a sign.
Eugen wrote:
ReplyDeleteI program PLCs and robots.There is nothing simple in a "simple algorithm". I do not want any randomness in my programs, wiring ,sensors, etc I fight randomness daily with all I can.
If the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
Troy:
ReplyDelete"The addition of these two simple behavioral rules to the model had a considerable impact on migration trajectories"
=======
Once again, nothing in nature is ever that simple when we get to the informational programing inside DNA. How is it that human designers are required to build these model programs for which we can all relate, but the far more complex mechanisms found in nature have no need of explanation other than they did ??? How is it that blind undirected forces created something far suerior to human programmed models ??? And how do you know that ???
--------
Troy:
How hard is it to encode two simple behavioral rules in a small neural network? Hint: not hard.
========
Then tell me ??? How did blind undirected forces with absolutely no motive or purpose for the benefit of the butterfly come up with what is in your view a simple navigation system ??? Why is it that any navigation system like radar, sonar, etc which we use takes intelligent human design are far INFERIOR to those found in nature for which only supposedly blind undirected forces with no intended goals or purpose brought about ???
Your avoiding the question because you actually don't know the answers and neither does your Church!!! You want all the questions to stop, then answer them in your research papers and studies and quit making vague unintelligent references by inserting a single word #evolution" in just so stories. Geeeze you guys are supposed to be the brilliant Geniuses here, get a clue!!!
The purpose of the reported study was to model the behavior of the insects. It was not to provide an argument for any particular historical origin of that behavior. The word “evolved” could have been replaced by “created,” if there were any scientific justification for doing so.
ReplyDeleteApparently the problem is that many of the studies quoted by CH assume that evidence for evolution is already very strong without giving any reason for assuming so. The remedy is simple. Every study involving any aspect of evolution whatsoever must justify that assumption independently. It must include a complete history of evolution, including reproductions of every study relevant to theirs, and every study relevant to those studies, and so on throughout history. Refusal to do this constitutes proof that scientists are simply making stuff up.
ReplyDeleteVenture Free said: "Refusal to do this constitutes proof that scientists are simply making stuff up."
ReplyDeleteWhat about the inability to do so?
Pedant:
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the reported study was to model the behavior of the insects. It was not to provide an argument for any particular historical origin of that behavior. The word “evolved” could have been replaced by “created,”
IF THERE WERE ANY SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR DOING SO.
========
And the last part of your statement here is the key. They never give ANY justificational PROOF for it's use. Just the mere act of printing it with no proof or explanation of the why ????? In such articles, especially under the neutral rules of science, no mention of either term is necessary. If it's purpose was to build and model a program, then it would be unnecessary. But it wasn't, since the research was about studying just how Butterlfies amazingly navigate through difficult circumstances and arrive exactly on track.
The models themselves were developed ONLY to explain and perhaps better understand the actual behavior mechanisms. If they derived some beneficial applicable ideas as a result, then that was simply a bonus. We all understand how human models are designed, but how about the superior realities found in nature ??? Simply printing the word "Evolution" in any study does NOT answer anything. If creation was used, then YES, it should be followed by an explanation of just how you arrive at such a conclusion with no game playing or fudging. If the article had been neutral on the matter, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'd simply have some answers as to building models for our own benefit and nothing more.
See how much easier it would have been had true neutral science definitions been used minus the philosophical ideologue insertions which offered nothing but comfort to the faithful ???
Oleg said: "If the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail."
ReplyDeleteIf the problem is the emergence of a computer such as an insect brain, then RM+NS is a hammer, when the tool we really need is a team of highly trained and educated engineers.
Venture Free:
ReplyDelete"The remedy is simple. Every study involving any aspect of evolution whatsoever must justify that assumption independently. It must include a complete history of evolution, including reproductions of every study relevant to theirs, and every study relevant to those studies, and so on throughout history. Refusal to do this constitutes proof that scientists are simply making stuff up."
========
That's just plain laziness and answers nothing. No entire history of all evolution would be necessary. Do you know why ??? Because if evolutionary scientists would get off their lazy duffs and go back to the beginning of life and actually explain and experimentally PROVE how nothing more than blind undirected forces of physics and chemicals created those original informational codes and molecular machines on just that one single celled organism(the supposed ancestor to all), then you would have a factual foundational standard to go by.
But you don't and instead get bent out of shape and offended when backed into a corner and made to defend bold unproven faith-based statements. Do you know why they are called "faith-based statments" ??? Because when evolutionists say that we don't yet know the origins of "ABIOGENESIS" , but one day science will know, that's a faith-based statment of something unproven without any facts to back it up. Seriously, look up the definition for FAITH.
Prove the Origin beginnings and you never have to talk about an entre history of evolutionary anything. Surely you must know how blind undirectedness works without purpose or intent for which things with purpose and functional intent come about ??? So tell us!!
Oh dear, another round of "ZOMG it's soooooo complicated! It couldn't possibly have evolved!!!" That means it was magically poofed into existence!!!
ReplyDeleteIDCers never seem to tire of their arguments from ignorance based personal incredulity.
Quote "Migratory butterflies and moths have evolved an amazing capacity to use favourable tailwinds"
ReplyDeleteThis is the usual obligatory bow to the mythical gods of evolution.
Eocene said,
ReplyDelete"Evolutionary credit is always given in such studies without any proof other than the mere purposeful act of just saying it is so."
No, not all such studies, just the studies Dr Hunter has trolled for. If crediting evolution was necessary for the imprimatur of the Magisterium, you'd see it much more frequently. I think James Randi calls it the 'oddmatch' phenomenon. Dr Hunter is actually highlighting how unusual it is to credit evolution, not the reverse.
In this case, two simple rules, viz:
Fly towards higher wind speed.
Maintain a heading compared to the stars (or magnetic norh, I'm not sure how all insects navigate).
Can generate a complex behavior. Either one by itself would still help the population survive. Comparing this to the calculation of variations is as silly as hyping bees solving the Traveling Salesman Problem faster than a computer.
Since we were previously treated to an analogy to the Newton-Raphson method of finding the zeros of a function, I can only conclude that Dr Hunter is taking a calculus refresher. It should come in handy for studying an infinite population of thylacines with infinitesmally small alleles.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"It couldn't possibly have evolved!!!" That means it was magically poofed into existence!!!
=======
Isn't that usually your line to someone who believes in creation, "you just believe it poofed into existance, but our side knows the mechanics of how it was done" ???
Well here's your anomymous big mouthed opportunity. Tell us how nothing more than blind undirected forces of physics and chemcials for no purpose or goals whatsoever created that brilliantly information compressed storage mechanism encoded with sophisticated instructions for guiding complex molecular nano-machines with massive amounts of purpose and intent.
If the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
ReplyDeleteOleg
I understand what you mean.
Please think about "simple algorithm" thingy a bit. Think what it takes to create algorithm.
Algorithm is a point where your idea (immaterial) connects with a real world (material). I do not see anything simple in this process. If it's simple to you please tell me how. Help me out.
David vun Kannon:
ReplyDelete"the Traveling Salesman Problem"
========
Actually I believe it was Cornelius who said that evolutionist's themselves were like the traveling salesman that lost money on every sale but thought he'd eventually be okay, since he could make it up later in volume.
That's exactly how almost every research paper should be read.
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteWell here's your anomymous big mouthed opportunity. Tell us how nothing more than blind undirected forces of physics and chemcials for no purpose or goals whatsoever created that brilliantly information compressed storage mechanism encoded with sophisticated instructions for guiding complex molecular nano-machines with massive amounts of purpose and intent.
Imperfect self-replicators subject to differential reproductive pressure produce complex morphology and behavior.
Now explain how the insects were magically 'poofed' into existence.
Over to you, bigger mouth.
Thorton said: "Now explain how the insects were magically 'poofed' into existence."
ReplyDeleteThe insect brain is a very efficient computer that can perform at least the number of calculations per second that the onboard computer on this mechanical animal must perform:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHJJQ0zNNOM
It seems to me that in the absence of highly trained and educated engineers (or an omniscient god), "poof" pretty much sums up the explanatory power of RM+NS to produce such an engineering marvel, wouldn't you say?
Eocene, I've got a question about something you said in a previous post that you may have missed. (I myself don't read old posts that frequently)
ReplyDeleteEocene: "No, Genesis is correct, the Earth is old."
This statement intrigues me, because although I've heard people claim that Genesis allows for an old earth, this is the first time I've heard someone claim that it advocates an old earth. I'm fairly familiar with the text of Genesis, so I'm interested to know which verses you find this interpretation in, and how you came to this conclusion.
If I were to make a similar statement, like: "No, 2nd Chronicles is correct, E=MC²," one would think that I would at least be able to provide a verse to support that assertion.
So, why do you think Genesis portrays an old earth?
In other words, Thorton could have replaced this sentance: "Imperfect self-replicators subject to differential reproductive pressure produce complex morphology and behavior" with the single word "poof", and obtained the same amount of explanatory power.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeal, I've got a question for you as well regarding something you said in the 'Abusing Science' thread:
ReplyDeleteNeal Tedford: "Old earth and Young earth interpretations of Genesis 1 both existed hundreds of years before Darwin."
You are making a statement of fact. You are claiming that something tangible and verifiable existed at a specific point in time. Give us a reference. If I claimed that heliocentric interpretations of scripture existed hundreds of years before Copernicus, I would at least be expected to back that up with some evidence. Do you have an example of one of these 'interpretations', or were you just hoping to not be called out on such assertions?
Derick said: “So, why do you think Genesis portrays an old earth?”
ReplyDeleteIt does not portray an old Earth, but it does not portray a young Earth, either. At the very least, the time-span of “day” cannot be determined because the definition of “night and day” changes on day 4.
Mike: It does not portray an old Earth, but it does not portray a young Earth, either. At the very least, the time-span of “day” cannot be determined because the definition of “night and day” changes on day 4.
ReplyDeleteMike, I partially agree with you, but that's not what Eocene was claiming. He was claiming specifically that genesis does portray an old earth.
What makes you think the definition of day and night 'changes' on day 4?
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Thorton could have replaced this sentance: "Imperfect self-replicators subject to differential reproductive pressure produce complex morphology and behavior" with the single word "poof", and obtained the same amount of explanatory power.
Nope. Once you get imperfect self-replicators subject to differential reproductive pressure, you get the evolution of complex morphology and behaviors. This has been scientifically demonstrated numerous times to be true, and is the basis for the whole technical field of product development by genetic algorithms. The identical processes are observed to work in nature and provide a detailed explanatory framework for all observed biological phenomena.
Science of course is still working and making progress on understanding the origins of the first pre-biotic self replicators 3.5+ billion years ago, but the high level explanation of everything since then is covered.
Tell us again what your claimed magic 'poof' explains.
Derick, you say: "What makes you think the definition of day and night 'changes' on day 4?"
ReplyDeleteOn day 1, light and darkness are defined as "day & night". But not until day 4 are the sun, moon and stars ordained as timekeepers, which (should) preclude us from claiming that "day 1 thru 6" are 24 hour time periods. In light of that, it seems to me that the usage of the word "day" as it pertains to the "six days" should denote an "epoch", not a uniform period of time.
Eocene said,
ReplyDelete"Actually I believe it was Cornelius who said that evolutionist's themselves were like the traveling salesman that lost money on every sale but thought he'd eventually be okay, since he could make it up later in volume.
That's exactly how almost every research paper should be read."
I'm sure Dr Hunter appreciates you remindnig us of his silliness. Given that is the extent of your response, I gather you had no more substantive comment.
BTW, the comments about evolution appear in the pop-sci article. I don't have access to the original Science article, so I can't tell you if there is any reference to evolution ni the original, peer reviewed version. But I think it is entirely appropriate in a popular science context for a scientist explaining their work to report their results and give some of their assumptions.
From the paper
ReplyDelete"The flight behaviors we examined allow insect migrants to utilize fast seasonally favorable tailwinds to maximize the distances traveled. The mechanisms for maximizing migration distance in favorable directions have presumably evolved because most insect migrants have very short migration "windows" (6). In this respect, insects are analogous to Arctic-breeding shorebirds, which also select the fastest high-altitude winds (21), but differ from nocturnal passerine migrants, which select the most favorably directed winds (22); the resulting insect migration speeds are, in fact, considerably faster than those achieved by passerines (2)."
It seems the authors assume the behavior has evolved and then they speculate about the adaptive value of the behavior.
I see nothing wrong in this. In the absence of a better explanatory framework than evolution, what else should the authors have said? Perhaps "The Designer must have wanted to give them these optimized behavioral rules, because he cares a lot about insects"?
Thorton, you say: “Once you get imperfect self-replicators subject to differential reproductive pressure, you get the evolution of complex morphology and behaviors. This has been scientifically demonstrated numerous times to be true, and is the basis for the whole technical field of product development by genetic algorithms.”
ReplyDeleteThe convergence of an algorithm (and its predefined convergence parameters) that originates from an intelligence and executes within a sophisticated computational device is one thing, but the emergence of complexes of sophisticated machinery regulated by software out of a pool of chemicals is quite another.
Then you said: “The identical processes are observed to work in nature and provide a detailed explanatory framework for all observed biological phenomena.”
This is a steaming pile. The “identical processes” have not been observed. It is just the opposite.
Mike:
ReplyDelete"It does not portray an old Earth, but it does not portray a young Earth, either. At the very least, the time-span of “day” cannot be determined because the definition of “night and day” changes on day 4."
==========
You are correct Mike, the time period covered is irrelevent. There are also several uses for that Hebrew word for day. It technically can be used depending on the context for any amount of time, just like we often use the English word for day with reference to a time period, epoch or era. The main point is time as mentioned in Genesis is for the most part irrelevent since nothing in that description dealt with the mechanics of how it was done, but simply stated order of events and nothing more. Unfortunately a materialist mind is incapable or most likely unwilling to grasp this. Psalm 90:4 and 1 Peter 3:8 also deal with an example of what a single day could be to God who has no need of 24 hour days. But that again gets quickly glossed over.
Another example of time not being meant as twenty four hours is in chapter 2 of genesis.
Genesis 2:4 - (American Standard Version)
4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the "DAY" that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
Notice the entire creation is spoken of as one event or day which in this case was simply speaking of the entire creative era and wasn't obviously meant to be taken as a literal 24 hour time period. In any event it will not matter to the higher critics who have not answered any of the other important questions here but rather choose this as a convenient side tracking attention time waster.
David vun Kannon:
ReplyDelete"I'm sure Dr Hunter appreciates you remindnig us of his silliness. Given that is the extent of your response, I gather you had no more substantive comment."
========
It's silliness to you because you don't have an answer and never do when it comes to explain how blind pointless indifference of undirected forces without purpse or goal driven intent actually accomplish amazing complex feats. Hence in your own mind your faith is intact.
--------
David vun Kannon:
"But I think it is entirely appropriate in a popular science context for a scientist explaining their work to report their results and give some of their assumptions."
========
Well of course you do, I would expect no less from any evolutionist.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"Imperfect self-replicators subject to differential reproductive pressure produce complex morphology and behavior."
=======
Thanks for playing anyway and proving to everyone you have no clue. Oh and thanks for keeping it clean. I know that must have been a difficult challenge.
Eocene said,
ReplyDelete"It's silliness to you because you don't have an answer and never do when it comes to explain how blind pointless indifference of undirected forces without purpse or goal driven intent actually accomplish amazing complex feats. Hence in your own mind your faith is intact."
That's not quite correct. My explanation is that at the same time as the amazing complex feats are being accomplished, an enormously larger number of small, mundane, and pointless feats are also being accomplished, therefore the population distribution of feats remains distributed as we would expect from a blind, pitiless universe, in which the rain falls on good and bad alike.
Eocene: "...in the "DAY" that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
ReplyDeleteI had never noticed that before. Thanks.
Eocene: "...in the "DAY" that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
ReplyDeleteIsn't it wonderful how the babble is so consistent and easy to interpret? Just as you would expect from a god who wanted to send a clear message to all of us. Hallelujah.
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteThe convergence of an algorithm (and its predefined convergence parameters) that originates from an intelligence and executes within a sophisticated computational device is one thing, but the emergence of complexes of sophisticated machinery regulated by software out of a pool of chemicals is quite another.
Living organisms aren't machinery unless you use the broadest possible definition of 'machine' as anything that converts energy to work. Living organisms also do not use software. Software functions are sometimes presented as analogies for complicated biochemical processes. Why can't IDCers ever understand the use of analogies?
Then you said: “The identical processes are observed to work in nature and provide a detailed explanatory framework for all observed biological phenomena.”
This is a steaming pile. The “identical processes” have not been observed. It is just the opposite.
Funny, NASA and everyone else who uses genetic algorithms says they use evolutionary processes.
"In artificial intelligence, an evolutionary algorithm (EA) is a subset of evolutionary computation, a generic population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm. An EA uses some mechanisms inspired by biological evolution: reproduction, mutation, recombination, and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the environment within which the solutions "live" (see also cost function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. Artificial evolution (AE) describes a process involving individual evolutionary algorithms; EAs are individual components that participate in an AE.
Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape; this generality is shown by successes in fields as diverse as engineering, art, biology, economics, marketing, genetics, operations research, robotics, social sciences, physics, politics and chemistry. source"
You'll understand if I accept their technical expertise over your unsupported personal opinions.
Troy: "Just as you would expect from a god who wanted to send a clear message to all of us."
ReplyDeleteYet we just CLEARLY showed why scripture precludes a young earth interpretation of creation. But at the same time, John 12:40 seems to speak well of you. It is to be read soberly.
"Ford Motor Co.'s revenues rose in the first quarter thanks to strong U.S. demand for cars and trucks..."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2010/04/ford_demand_revenues_up_in_fir.html
These authors PRESUME the prevailing economic theory! And what is the evidence here? Where is the control, that within the same time period that revenues wouldn't have risen without increased demand? Who is to say a divine wind didn't influence stock prices without any linkage to earnings?
How did the desire to posses, supply, and capitalism arise? And we need to observe all steps, not infer them from historical and current data, right? (List every mutation, or you can't invoke evolution?)
Religion drives economics and it matters?
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteYet we just CLEARLY showed why scripture precludes a young earth interpretation of creation. But at the same time, John 12:40 seems to speak well of you. It is to be read soberly.
Since you seem to be an expert in the Bible, can you please give me the objective method you use in determining if a Bible verse should be read as literal, or figurative, or meant as an allegory or metaphor? A method that doesn't rely on yours or anyone else's personal interpretations that is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetest
ReplyDeleteposts are disappearing again.
ReplyDeleteI've gone over this topic before in the Fossil Ant post, so I'll just repeat the highlights.
ReplyDeleteMike: On day 1, light and darkness are defined as "day & night". But not until day 4 are the sun, moon and stars ordained as timekeepers, which (should) preclude us from claiming that "day 1 thru 6" are 24 hour time periods.
Yet it does not. There is no change in the linguistic structure of the days part way through. Each and every one has the qualifier "And there was evening, and there was morning, the 'x' day." (NIV; but this holds true for the original Hebrew as well) The plain reading of the text is that Creation is being described as taking place over 6 literal, 24-hour days. There are a multitude of contextual clues. In Hebrew, 'yom' can mean anything to a 24-hour day, to daylight, to an indefinite span of time, but whenever it is paired with a number, or a reference to morning or evening, it is always understood to be a 24-hour day, and in the creation account it is paired with both. It's kind of like the English phrase: "Back in my father's day, walking across the desert during the day took 3 days." In that one sentence, the word 'day' has three distinct meanings: time period, daylight, 24-hour day, but the context removes any ambiguity. In that same way, It seems to be the consensus of most Hebrew scholars that the intended meaning of the creation days in the creation account were 24-hour days, not periods of time. Other clues abound, like the fact that plants could survive without a sun for 24 hours, but not millions of years. A young earth was the consensus of essentially every single Christian theologian up until around the Enlightenment. (Right, Neal?) And the heavenly bodies where ordained as time markers for the seasons, not for the creation days. The unambiguous wording of "There was evening, and there was morning, the 'x' day," takes care of that. The only reason the day/age interpretation has any traction whatsoever is to attempt to square the account with what we now know about the history of earth and the universe. The problem is, if you bend scripture to match scientific consensus, you've got a much, much, much bigger problem with Genesis: Even if you can skew the 'days' to be 'ages', practically nothing else in the account is in the right order: http://bit.ly/9Dupb3
continued below...
Mike: In light of that, it seems to me that the usage of the word "day" as it pertains to the "six days" should denote an "epoch", not a uniform period of time.
ReplyDeleteYet, if we read the text, each day cannot possibly mean an 'epoch' because plants are created before the sun,
all sea creatures were created before any land creatures.
Mike: Yet we just CLEARLY showed why scripture precludes a young earth interpretation of creation.
Oh, did you now? Interesting then that so many Christians are young earth creationists. Can they just not see what is so clearly written in the text? Isn't it odd that essentially no one came to this conclusion before the science of geology discovered it quite independently? Isn't it just a little absurd to claim that something that went completely unnoticed for 3500 years is clearly written in the text? But, if it's so clear that Genesis precludes a young earth, then how do you make the statement:
Mike: It does not portray an old Earth, but it does not portray a young Earth, either.
Which one is it Mike? Does Genesis preclude a young earth, or does it allow it?
Eocene: "...in the "DAY" that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
Mike: I had never noticed that before. Thanks.
I wouldn't thank Eocene for that observation, he's just demonstrating his lack of reading comprehension. Like I pointed out before, If someone says: "Back in my father's day, walking across the desert during the day took 3 days," Do you really think it's hopeless (to a native english speaker) to try to understand what the three different meanings of that same word are?
and Eocene, which is it for you? Is "Genesis right that the earth is old," or is the matter of age "irrelevant"?
Eocene, I can't help but note that I wasn't asking why you think Genesis allows and old earth, but why you think it portrays an old earth.
ReplyDelete"Yet, if we read the text, each day cannot possibly mean an 'epoch' because plants are created before the sun, all sea creatures were created before any land creatures."
ReplyDeleteBut Derick, the plants could have been created as seeds, and stored in heavy-duty freezers for millions of years, until god saw fit to create the sun. The freezers were then destroyed without leaving a trace. All perfectly consistent with genesis. Hey, I know, to our puny finite minds it doesn't make much sense, but who are we to question the motives of an infinite mind?
CH wrote:
ReplyDeleteAnd what is the evidence that this amazing capacity evolved?
And what is the evidence that the curvature of space time causes objects to fall when you drop them, rather than an army of demons that push and pull on objects in accordance with their mass?
Hunter doesn't have a problem with general relativity because the underlying explanation it provides does not conflict with his personal theological views on the role demons play in physics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMike to Troy: But at the same time, John 12:40 seems to speak well of you. It is to be read soberly.
ReplyDeleteJohn 12:40:
He has blinded their eyes
and deadened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”
Well, seeing as how 'they' in this passage is referring to a specific group first century Jews, I find it a tad unlikely that it's referring to Troy. (I don't mean to be presumptuous Troy, but you're not a 2,000 year old Jew who was in the presence of Jesus while he performed miracles, are you?)
Keep up the good cherrypicking.
Look guys, I would not make big deal of Bible interpretation. What if wise men were litlle drunk while writing? With all respect but who can resist good glass of wine?
ReplyDeleteA system that allows insects to find favroabel winds, necessitates a number of different parts. You need a compass, an altometer, a map, a timer, memory, and a way to contact this all to behavior. How did all this evolve?
ReplyDeleteNot to mention reading glasses for the map.
ReplyDeleteDerick: “In Hebrew, 'yom' can mean anything to a 24-hour day, to daylight, to an indefinite span of time, but whenever it is paired with a number, or a reference to morning or evening, it is always understood to be a 24-hour day” … “’Back in my father's day, walking across the desert during the day took 3 days.’ In that one sentence, the word 'day' has three distinct meanings: time period, daylight, 24-hour day, but the context removes any ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so let’s looks at the context, and see if there is an exception to your pairing rule. I certainly agree that the heavenly bodies were not ordained as timekeepers for the creation days, because the text states on day4: “and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years”. It mentions “days” here specifically as a 24 hour time period. But this means that the 24 hour time period was not an ordained method by which to measure time until day4, and if that is the case, what is the time-span of day1 thru day3? And you can’t say that day4 thru day6 are 24 hour time periods because, as you said, “There is no change in the linguistic structure of the days part way through. Each and every one has the qualifier ‘And there was evening, and there was morning’, the ‘x’ day." This makes it clear that the six days are to be considered the same “thing”, yet distinct from a 24 hour time period.
Derick: “Other clues abound, like the fact that plants could survive without a sun for 24 hours, but not millions of years.”
I take the creation account to be phenomenological. IOW, the heavenly bodies were not created on day 4, they became visible. Regardless of that, there was certainly the light from day1 (whatever its source) to keep the vegetation alive.
Derick: “Isn't it odd that essentially no one came to this conclusion before the science of geology discovered it quite independently? Isn't it just a little absurd to claim that something that went completely unnoticed for 3500 years is clearly written in the text?
Augustine held this view of the creation account, and that based on scripture. He was clearly not trying to fit the account to modern scientific theories. He didn’t think the 6 days to be 24 hour periods, and he didn’t even think them to be chronological. I don’t mind standing with him.
Derick, you say: “Well, seeing as how 'they' in this passage is referring to a specific group first century Jews, I find it a tad unlikely that it's referring to Troy... Keep up the good cherrypicking.”
That passage is quoted from Isaiah 6, which originally applied to Jews that lived around 700 BC. And if I was cherry picking to apply it to people today, did John cherry pick in applying it to 1st century Jews? If not, what is the common thread? 12:37 states “Although he had performed so many miraculous signs before them, they still refused to believe”. I see that the quotation applies to some people today in that our understanding of biology shows us the inner workings of the cell, which is packed with molecular machines that are regulated by software (computers in every sense of the term), and yet there is a steadfast refusal to even consider the possibility that we were created.
Mike:
ReplyDelete"I had never noticed that before. Thanks."
=======
Your welcome. Now if you enjoyed that, perhaps you'll also appreciate yet another fine example of how the same Hebrew word for day is used with reference to the word "day" being used beyond the normal 24 hour time period. This example is also used in Genesis chapter two. This is the instance where God's new intelligent creation man had not yet made proper use of freewill as an integrity keeper. Here is what was stated in the first simple non-burdensome Law. I'll quote from the old King James Version with it's archaic English.
Genesis 2:17 (King James Version)
(17) "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the "DAY" that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Did you see where the word "DAY" was used ??? Yet we know from the genealogical records given later in Genesis 5:3,5 that Adam lived for 930 years of age. Could this perhaps fall under the time period mentioned of what a day is to God as mentioned in Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8 ???
Psalm 90:4 (King James Version)
"4) "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."
So 1000 years is compared to a "watch in the night". How long would a soldier's watch be, maybe at best a few hours until he was relieved by another ??? 2 Peter 3:8 basically says exactly the same when making comparison to God's day being 1000 years, in fact it is a quote of Psalm 90:4. However there are other scriptures which show God's view of time is far different from our short sited view of it. Take for example this scripture which illustrates the entire lifespan of the average man 70-80 years and it's view from God's perspective.
Psalm 39:5 (New Living Translation)
(5) "You have made my life no longer than the width of my hand.
My entire lifetime is just a moment to you;
at best, each of us is but a breath.”
So a lifespan could be considered by God to be a mere breath. How long is a breath, one or two seconds ??? Here's another scripture which illustrates God's view of the shortness of a human lifespan when compared to a human's timeline view:
Job 14:2 (New International Version 1984)
(2) "He springs up like a flower and withers away;
like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure."
In the end Mike it means nothing to your average materialist who looks for excuses and loopholes to justify their behavour and issues against accountability. Genesis freightens them. Making fun of it and imagining perceived holes or flaws in it comforts them and salves their conscience. They have every right for the moment to do this.
Mike:
ReplyDelete"I take the creation account to be phenomenological. IOW, the heavenly bodies were not created on day 4, they became visible. Regardless of that, there was certainly the light from day1 (whatever its source) to keep the vegetation alive."
=======
This is yet another perceived flaw by so-called self-promoting intellectuals who've never taken the honest scholastic time to understand that there are actually two different Hebrew words for light used in Genesis 1:3 and 1:14.
The first English reference to light used in Genesis 1:3 is the Hebrew word for light ('ohr) which is a general diffused light which reached through gradually to the surface of the earth. The thick atmosphere on the primitive earth would have been something close to Vensus. An everyday modern example of the use of this Hebrew word for light would be like the general light we see on a cloudy or foggy day. The actual source of that light cannot be seen in any particular location.
In verse 14 of Genesis chapter one the Hebrew word used is (ma'ohr) and is properly translated in several translations as the English word "Luminaries" (sources of light) as this one does:
Genesis 1:14 (Young's Literal Translation)
(14) "And God saith, `Let "LUMINARIES" be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,"
Interestingly in verse 16, the expression the "two great luminaries" were made to dominate the sky, the greater one(sun) dominted the day and the lesser one(moon) dominated the night. The stars were listed as separate. The point of the fourth creative period was that during the sources of light gradually began to appear after the cloud layers which blocked much of the light thinned.
This actually has much Nursey Greenhouse and Shadehouse applications as most all young plants are delicate and tender towards full sunlight. Even plants that have been grown for a couple of years under shade must be gradually "hardened off" as we call it from the full effects of outdoor sunlight or they die. In nature many plants require what is called a "nurse plants"(usually an adult plant of a different species from themselves, shrub or tree) because full direct sunlight would fry them. This is true of most cacti plants despite their fondness and exacting needs for desert habitats.
Once again, this will mean nothing for the materialist who has no need for the truth of the matter since anything from the bible that may actually agree with their viewpoint should be shunned or at least twisted into a lie. Otherwise they may be required to act on what they've learned and change their worldview and that is totally unacceptable. Hence "What Is Truth?" arguementation is the best tactic when backed into a corner on anything.
Me: “In Hebrew, 'yom' can mean anything to a 24-hour day, to daylight, to an indefinite span of time, but whenever it is paired with a number, or a reference to morning or evening, it is always understood to be a 24-hour day”
ReplyDeleteMike: This makes it clear that the six days are to be considered the same “thing”...
Correct.
Mike: ...yet distinct from a 24 hour time period.
Incorrect. As I said before, in every single other place in scripture, when the word 'yom' is used with either a number, or a reference to morning and evening, it is understood to be referring to a 24-hour day. In Genesis, 'yom' is used with both. The days in Genesis are clearly referring to regular 24-hour days, and that is why this was the nearly unanimous interpretation until modern geology came along.
Mike: Augustine held this view {day/age} of the creation account, and that based on scripture.
He most certainly did not; in fact, he believed the exact opposite: that creation was instantaneous, and that the creation story wasn't an historical account at all.
Mike: He didn’t think the 6 days to be 24 hour periods.
He didn't think the 6 days to be time periods at all, let alone long periods of time, nor did anyone else that I'm aware of before geologists discovered the antiquity of the earth.
Mike: I don’t mind standing with him.
But you're not. Your advocating precisely the opposite view, that Genesis is an historical, chronological account of creation.
continued below...
Mike: I take the creation account to be phenomenological. IOW, the heavenly bodies were not created on day 4, they became visible.
ReplyDeleteO.k. then, for the sake of argument, let's say that when scripture says that God made the sun on the 4th day it doesn't actually mean that God made the sun on the 4th day. The phenomenological view still doesn't work because essentially nothing else is in the right order. In Genesis, the order of appearance is:
1. The earth.
2. Plant life, including fruit trees and seed bearing plants.
3. The sun, moon, and stars are 'revealed'.
4. All creatures that live in the sea, and birds.
5. All land animals.
6. Humans.
But the scientific consensus on the order of appearance is:
1. The stars.
2. The sun.
3. The earth and moon.
4. some creatures that live in the sea, but not all.
5. some land animals, some seed bearing plants, but not all.
6. some more sea creatures.
7. some more land animals.
repeat 6 and 7 a few times.
8. Fruit trees.
9. birds.
repeat 6 and 7 a few more times.
10. Humans.
And that's just going by the first creation account.
So you see, Genesis cannot possibly be phenomenological in nature if you also think that the scientific chronology is more or less correct, because Genesis doesn't line up with the order of events an observer would have actually perceived.
Mike: That passage is quoted from Isaiah 6, which originally applied to Jews that lived around 700 BC. And if I was cherry picking to apply it to people today, did John cherry pick in applying it to 1st century Jews?
The author of John was making the claim that Isaiah 6:10 was a prophecy referring to Jesus and the people who saw his miracles. Are you making the claim that it is a prophecy referring to Troy as well? Let me ask you a separate question. If we take a verse like Jerimiah 29:11 " For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future," does the 'you' in that verse refer to you?
Eocene, your reading comprehension skills would make for an entertaining comedy sketch:
ReplyDeleteTraveler: I'd like to book a hotel room for three days.
Hotel Clerk: Excellent. And how long would you like to book the room for?
Traveler: I just told you. Three days.
Clerk: Well, "day" can have many, many different meanings. I can say "Back in the day," which means an indefinite period of time, or I can say "Don't go out in the day," which could just mean a period of sunlight. So how long would you like to stay?
Traveler: I told you, three days!
Clerk: Yes, but how long are those three indefinite periods of time?
Traveler: Three days! This morning, this evening, tomorrow morning, tomorrow evening, the following morning, and the following evening! Three days!
Clerk: You're not giving me much to go on here. After all, the english word 'day' can have several meanings. It can mean an indefinite period of time, or...
Traveler: THREE! Three days! Three regular days.
Clerk: And are all three of these 'days' the same kind of days?
Traveler: What?
Clerk: Is your frame of reference changing at any point during these 'days'? I'm just trying to be thorough.
Traveler: NO! When I say three days, I mean three regular, consecutive, 24-hour periods of time. How can I be more clear?
Clerk: You could use another word besides 'day'. After all, the word day can have several...
Traveler: Three regular, consecutive, 24-hour periods of time!
Clerk: Oh. why didn't you just say so?
Derick Childish:
ReplyDelete"Eocene, your reading comprehension skills would make for an entertaining comedy sketch:"
========
You don't even posess reading comprehension skills, neither do you have clue one as to the original meanings of the Hebrew words used because you've never honestly taken the time or care to research them. And this phony Theistic position stance by you have been uncloaked by you yourself.
Why don't you explain to your atheist buddies who you've chosen to align yourself with how and why you believe Jesus (who you insisted was God) is God and if they don't hurry up and believe what you do they will be headed straight for Hell ??? Seriously, explain how Jesus (Your God) got the evolutionary ball rolling in the beginning and back it up with hard facts. Thus far the best you come up with are usual unintelligent smart*ssisms which only further provides evidence of your atheism in disguise.
"Mike: I take the creation account to be phenomenological. IOW, the heavenly bodies were not "CREATED" on day 4, they became visible."
ReplyDelete=======
The word you referenced there Mike is actually key. Often the english translation of the word/s don't give the full flavour of it's purposed meaning or intent without someone injecting an entirely off the wall definition attachment influence by philosophy, bigotry, personal bias etc, etc, etc.
Take for example the different meaning of actually two entirely different Hebrew words used in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16 & 17. Using the ever popular old archaic english translation:
Genesis 1 (King James Version)
(1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
The Hebrew word for the act of creating something or in this case the word "created" is ( ba-rá ) and the two english words used in Genesis 1:16-17 "made" and "set" are the same Hebrew word which is a form of ( à sah' ) has an entirely different meaning from create.
Genesis 1:16-17 (New International Version)
(16) "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. (17) God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, . . "
This same Hebrew word which is often translated to "make" is also used to mean "establish" something like at 2 Samuel 7:11 and "appoint" at Deuteronomy 15:1 , and "form" Jeremiah 18:4 or even "prepare" at Genesis 21:8
Your understanding of the Genesis account being written in the form of a phenomenological style is also correct. The account approaches the matter from the standpoint of a human observer on Earth. It simply describes events as they would have seen by a human observer had they been present. The actual detailed mechanics of how it was accomplished are totally unecessary as that was not the intent and purpose of the Bible being written in the first place. This however will not appease the so-called higher critics who have no other motive than demonize anything they see as a threat to their worldview. In the end it is irrelevent whether or not it is accepted by some self promoting intellect.
Eoceneto Mike: Your understanding of the Genesis account being written in the form of a phenomenological style is also correct. The account approaches the matter from the standpoint of a human observer on Earth. It simply describes events as they would have seen by a human observer had they been present.
ReplyDeleteEocene, you must not have ever read Genesis. The order of events that an observer on earth would have seen do not match, in any way, shape, or form the order of events described in Genesis. I hate to be repetitive, In Genesis, the order of appearance is:
1. The earth.
2. Plant life, including fruit trees and seed bearing plants.
3. The sun, moon, and stars are 'revealed'.
4. All creatures that live in the sea, and birds.
5. All land animals.
6. Humans.
But actual order of appearance is:
1. The stars.
2. The sun.
3. The earth and moon.
4. some creatures that live in the sea, but not all.
5. some land animals, some seed bearing plants, but not all.
6. some more sea creatures.
7. some more land animals.
repeat 6 and 7 a few times.
8. Fruit trees.
9. birds.
repeat 6 and 7 a few more times.
10. Humans.
You either have no grasp of the Genesis account, or you don't really understand what 'phenomenological' means, or you're just to dull to see the discrepancy. (I'm guessing a little bit of all three) The phenomenological interpretation of Genesis is the least tenable of all the proposed interpretations.
Eocene: Why don't you explain to your atheist buddies who you've chosen to align yourself with how and why you believe Jesus (who you insisted was God) is God and if they don't hurry up and believe what you do they will be headed straight for Hell ??? Seriously, explain how Jesus (Your God) got the evolutionary ball rolling in the beginning and back it up with hard facts.
ReplyDeleteWell, first of all you keep asking me the same question over and over again, and I keep answering it over and over again, so I'll just point you back the last time I did: http://bit.ly/bhsfHc (I keep the link handy because you ask me the same question so often) I don't think you've ever answered my question: Do you believe that God controls the rain? Do you believe that God controls the seas? Or anything else in nature for that matter?
Secondly, hell, is not a place, so no one is 'going there'. The idea of Hell as a physical place is an unfortunate remnant from medieval theology. Scripture teaches that 'the wages of sin is death', not 'the wages of sin is eternal life, just a more unpleasant eternal life than others.' If you line up the Old Testament books in the order they were written, there is almost no mention of the afterlife whatsoever until the latter books. Even then, the word used to describe what happens after death is 'sheol' which usually just means 'grave'. In the new testament descriptions of hell, annihilation seems to be what is being taught: when you separate wheat from chaff and throw the chaff into the fire, what happens to it? Does it sit there burning forever or is it immediately and permanently consumed? (matt. 3:12, luke 3:17) In Matthew 10:28 Jesus tells us that hell destroys both body and soul. In revelation we have an example of a corpse with a 'worm that dieth not'. If you throw a corpse to undying, unquenchable worms, does it have any chance of surviving? In both the 'unquenchable fire' and 'undying worm' illustrations, the punishment is what is being referred to as permanent and unescapable, not that which is being punished.
continued below...
...continued:
ReplyDeleteThirdly Eocene, you are what I call an anti-evangelist. An evangelist is someone who, by their words or actions, makes people less skeptical and more receptive of a position. You, Joe, and to a slightly lesser extent, Neal, do the opposite. By your constant shows of almost unfathomable ignorance and constant inability to comprehend the most basic facts and arguments, you make everyone listening to your dribble more skeptical and less receptive of Christianity. Theology attempts to explain why reality is the way it is. But if theologians can't get the 'reality' part right, why listen to anything else they have to say. Before one can construct a building, one must do something about the idiots trying to dynamite the foundation.
As I've said many, many times before, if anyone says anything patently stupid or demonstrably false, I intend on correcting them if able. But so far, I'm embarrassed to say, it is mainly the Christians making statements like that.
Eocene wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe word you referenced there Mike is actually key. Often the english translation of the word/s don't give the full flavour of it's purposed meaning or intent without someone injecting an entirely off the wall definition attachment influence by philosophy, bigotry, personal bias etc, etc, etc.
Of course, this does nothing to address the elephant in the room.
Why would we expect reality to reflect the original words as found in the Bible, rather than the original words in some other holy book? For example, why not the original words of Vedic scriptures, or the original words of the Koran? Why any holy book for that matter?
In other words, even if it were possible to know what the original author originally intended, it's unclear why we should assume the author's views represent an accurate reflection of reality.
Again, is your conclusion that the Bible, rather than some other holy book, is actually the word of God based on what you consider a common-sense?
I said: “Augustine held this view of the creation account, and that based on scripture. He was clearly not trying to fit the account to modern scientific theories. He didn’t think the 6 days to be 24 hour periods, and he didn’t even think them to be chronological. I don’t mind standing with him.”
ReplyDeleteThen Derick said:
----------
Mike: Augustine held this view {day/age} of the creation account, and that based on scripture.
He most certainly did not; in fact, he believed the exact opposite: that creation was instantaneous, and that the creation story wasn't an historical account at all.
----------
When I said that Augustine held this view, I was specifically speaking of his argument that the Genesis account could not be taken as a 24 hour period because the sun was not “made” until the 4th day. And I am aware that he believed creation to be instantaneous, which pretty much means he didn’t take the six days to be chronological. And I stand with him in that I agree that the events on day four preclude a literal 24 hour day interpretation.
Derick said: “In Hebrew, 'yom' can mean anything to a 24-hour day, to daylight, to an indefinite span of time, but whenever it is paired with a number, or a reference to morning or evening, it is always understood to be a 24-hour day, and in the creation account it is paired with both. It's kind of like the English phrase: "Back in my father's day, walking across the desert during the day took 3 days." In that one sentence, the word 'day' has three distinct meanings: time period, daylight, 24-hour day, but the context removes any ambiguity. In that same way, It seems to be the consensus of most Hebrew scholars that the intended meaning of the creation days in the creation account were 24-hour days, not periods of time.”
Why do you correctly assert that we should derive meaning from any text based on its context, then completely ignore your own advice when it comes to Genesis 1, and rely instead on some alleged consensus among Hebrew scholars?
Derick said:
ReplyDelete----------
In Genesis, the order of appearance is:
1. The earth.
2. Plant life, including fruit trees and seed bearing plants.
3. The sun, moon, and stars are 'revealed'.
4. All creatures that live in the sea, and birds.
5. All land animals.
6. Humans.
But actual order of appearance is:
1. The stars.
2. The sun.
3. The earth and moon.
4. some creatures that live in the sea, but not all.
5. some land animals, some seed bearing plants, but not all.
6. some more sea creatures.
7. some more land animals.
repeat 6 and 7 a few times.
8. Fruit trees.
9. birds.
repeat 6 and 7 a few more times.
10. Humans.
----------
Regarding the chronology of the Genesis account vs. scientific consensus:
For starters, I am very much a gap theorist. I take it that the creation of the sun, stars and moon (heavens) and the Earth is accounted for in verse 1. This takes care of #1, #2 & #3. But in regards to #4 thru #10, I have always wondered what was not made mention of in the Genesis account. For instance, on day three, the text specifically states “Let the LAND produce vegetation”. I don’t see any reason why oceanic plants could not have already been there, but were not mentioned. And I don’t see a reason why oceanic creatures could not have already been there also (sponges, trilobites, worms), because your claim that ALL sea creatures were created on day5 is not necessarily true. The text states:
““Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind”.
I think it is imperative to note that the text states “let the water SWARM with living creatures”, as opposed to ‘let there be living creatures in the water’. I take this to mean that the water already had living creatures, but was not anywhere near as prolific as it became on day5. The text also states “God created every living and moving thing WITH WHICH THE WATER SWARMED”, as opposed to ‘God created every living and moving thing that lived in the water’. The text actually does not preclude the existence of sea creatures before day5. However, the text does specifically state that all birds according to their kind (whatever a ‘kind” is) were created in this time frame, but this is not problematic if chronology is in view, and other land animals were not made mention of.
Finally, on day6, cattle (livestock-type animals), creeping things (such as lizards or vermin) and wild animals (of the field) are “produced by the land”, which is very vague and general. I take this to speak of typical modern land animals that man would be familiar with, mainly because they are mentioned along with the creation of man, and the words that are used describe just that. I do not take it to mean that ALL land animals were created at this time (birds are land animals, too), but all MODERN land animals were.
For these reasons, I do not find the Gen 1 account to conflict with the modern scientific consensus of the formation of the starry heavens, or the chronological emergence of taxon in Earth’s history. And when I say that the account is phenomenological, I mean that it is phenomenological for those things that are made mention of.
(Note: I used the NET version.)
Derick:
ReplyDelete"Eocene, you must not have ever read Genesis. The order of events that an observer on earth would have seen do not match, in any way, shape, or form the order of events described in Genesis.
=====
This is simply your opinion of what YOU THINK I know or don't know and understand. You need to understand that your opinion does NOT translate to FACT.
-------
I hate to be repetitive, In Genesis, the order of appearance is:
1. The earth.
2. Plant life, including fruit trees and seed bearing plants.
3. The sun, moon, and stars are 'revealed'.
4. All creatures that live in the sea, and birds.
5. All land animals.
6. Humans.
======
Again that above description is rubbish. I do not believe in such a description. You never have undertaken an honest scholastic research of the original Hebrew words, their various uses and rules for use. What we have here illustrates your philosophical NEED to have the Genesis creation account ONLY interpreted and read through the eyes of a FUNDY-YEC worldview. Nice try, but big time fail. You've made an entire career here on these boards making fun of and destroying the Bible and your true atheism shows. Thanks for illustrating that.
What I find interesting is that you want to take literally the Hebrew word for "day" as 24 hours and not apply an illustrative interpretation to it, yet fast forward to the New Testament, you want to read the expression about Jesus as the "son of God" to mean that the real human Jesus was actually God almighty who was killed by mere men ??? Explain that to your atheist audience whom I'm certain are all eyes on this one.
Derick:
ReplyDelete"You either have no grasp of the Genesis account, or you don't really understand what 'phenomenological' means, or you're just to dull to see the discrepancy."
======
It's an account given as in the first person as if an actual human being was present. There are no mechanics involved to appease arrogant higher crtics. If you don't want or refuse to grasp that, that is your freewilled choice. Clearly a materialist mind is incapable of understanding that the fleshly matters are least important purpose for the Bible's being written. It's a spiritual one.
Derick:
ReplyDelete"Well, first of all you keep asking me the same question over and over again, and I keep answering it over and over again, so I'll just point you back the last time I did: http://bit.ly/bhsfHc (I keep the link handy because you ask me the same question so often)
=======
That link is totally worthless and explains nothing except you've got this gut feeling God exists. Try again, prove from your research where Jesus created that first monumental living cell with it's sophisticated complex molecular machines and the one of the most complex informational compression storage mechanisms known to manking to get the Evo-Bio-Ball rolling and then allowed for nothing more but Chaos to take over without any further intelligent imput ???
Your link was also based on flawed assumptions of what you think I believe. The other problem for you is that the Jesus Christ of the Bible New Testament himself quoted directly from the Genesis creation account which revealed he took it as a fact. Prove otherwise.
------
Derick:
I don't think you've ever answered my question: Do you believe that God controls the rain? Do you believe that God controls the seas? Or anything else in nature for that matter?
=======
Those questions are rediculous and have nothing to do with the subject at hand. We both know the answers to that, though you may be surprised at what the bible actually does say since you probably as usual didn't do your homework again before demanding answers for which you thought would be a dastardly trip up.
Matthew 5:45 (Amplified Bible)
" . . Father, Who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the wicked and on the good, and makes the rain fall upon the upright and the wrongdoers [alike]."
Nice try tho.
-------
Derick:
"Secondly, hell, is not a place, so no one is 'going there'. The idea of Hell as a physical place is an unfortunate remnant from medieval theology."
=======
This is definitely one of the things we agree on. Except the Hellfire doctrine has always been a centuries earlier than Medieval times Pagan Doctrine introduced into apostate Christianity around the 3rd century when Constantine formulated and united the what was left of the fractionalized disunited Christian community and what was left of ancient Roman/Greek Pagandom.
Gerald Schreoder has an interesting way based on General Relativity to show how a day can be both a 24 hour period and Billions of years.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Days in Genesis 1 must be different than the other Days thoughout the Bible because in the rest of the Bible a day is always determined by the movement of the sun. But the sun was not created until the forth day.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletenatshuster Gerald Schreoder has an interesting way based on General Relativity to show how a day can be both a 24 hour period and Billions of years.
ReplyDeleteWhy, how convenient! What a development! With Schroeder's method, we can make the Bible say pretty much anything, can't we?
natshuster And the Days in Genesis 1 must be different than the other Days thoughout the Bible because in the rest of the Bible a day is always determined by the movement of the sun. But the sun was not created until the forth day.
Uh, nat, you do know that a day is determined by the rotation of the earth , and doesn't really require light from the sun. (if the sun immediately collapsed into a black hole, it would still take approximately 24 hours for the earth to make one full rotation around its axis. Just making sure you were up to date with current astronomy; the sun does not orbit the earth.
And according to Eocene, Mike, and pretty much every other OEC, the sun was 'revealed' on the 4th day, but it had been 'created' on day one. So there is no reason, scientific, textual, or other to think that some of the days are different periods of time than the other days.