Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[PsychoSarah]

OK, I'll try this nice and slow. That is an interesting and very important point, PsychoSarah. Evolution is not about brutal competition. There is a definite altruistic side to it. Bacteria have been known to exhibit altruistic behavior. I posit all entities have feelings and empathy for one another. Such altruistic behavior I take as proof of that. I also posit that altruism and egotism are one, not two exclusive categories. You cannot be happy unless your brother is happy. Such altruistic behavior demonstrates that. I also posit that love is not a mere nicety; love is essential for our survival. Such altruistic behavior does point to that.

Haha, what? I think in order to be altruistic, one has to have the potential to willfully be malicious. All of what a bacterium does is instinct, not thought out. They measurably do not have the capacity to think, let alone decide to help or harm each other. Besides, for it to be altruistic, there would have to be some loss, or at least lack of a benefit, to a bacteria that performed an action that helped others. But bacteria don't make such sacrifices; all benefit from being in a colony together.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I hear you, Paul. However, I am working from a metaphysical system very different from yours. You are assuming atoms,passive, inert, dead matter, are the basic building blocks of reality. I am assuming actual occasions or momentary unities of experience are the basic building blocks.

Well, no, I'm not assuming that about atoms. Atoms are active, not inert; you can't tell exactly where they are at any one time due to quantum uncertainties; the basic building blocks of matter are more than just atoms, they include various forms of energy above and beyond "atoms" and they clearly include stuff we don't even know what it is yet, and we call "dark matter", "quintessence", and such as that.

According to relativity, the most accurate thing to say is the fundamental stuff would be "events" and their relationships. That and there are certain things that are "conserved". Mass/energy, for example.

In my own metaphysics, the reality we live and breath and work in is a great thought in the mind of God. Is that so different from yours?

 

[Hoghead1]

I can't tell yet, Paul. I'm not sure what you mean by our reality being a great thought in the mind of God. Are you assuming there really is no external, material world, just ideas in either God's head or ours? Or are you simply saying the universe stems from a great idea on God's part? I see what you are saying abut the basic building blocks of the universe. Offhand, I would say you are different. You seem to be talking abut passive, inert, dead matter still. Are these "events" experiences? Do these "various forms of energy" you talk about denote feelings, emotions? I am arguing that they do. Let me put it another way. I am saying all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of minds or souls or psyches.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The Authors and redactors of the Old Testament didn't know about evolution, they made no claim to be writing the Word of God. The pseudo biographical narratives written for public consumption became tradition, sacred and eventually scripture.

Indeed -- rather than seeing the Bible as God's autobiography (as too many Christians do, IMO), it should be seen as a historical record of a people trying (and often falling short) to understand the "God" experience they believed was revealed to them.

We see the people in the Bible fail time and again -- and it is from that stock that the authors came from... dare we call them infallible?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I can't tell yet, Paul. I'm not sure what you mean by our reality being a great thought in the mind of God. Are you assuming there really is no external, material world, just ideas in either God's head or ours?

You could put it that way.

Or are you simply saying the universe stems from a great idea on God's part? I see what you are saying abut the basic building blocks of the universe. Offhand, I would say you are different. You seem to be talking abut passive, inert, dead matter still. Are these "events" experiences? Do these "various forms of energy" you talk about denote feelings, emotions? I am arguing that they do. Let me put it another way. I am saying all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of minds or souls or psyches.

How can you tell?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you need evolution to be the explanation you will defend it in all ways possible. If you can accept God, you don't need evolution, though you might accept it, but there isn't reason to dismiss the creation account.

What reason is there to accept the creation account?

 

[Hoghead1]

Good question, Paul. I'll try and be brief. As I believe I did mention in previous posts addressed to you, the mind-body dualism has never really worked. Descartes, for example, really pushed it and then never really could explain how the two interact. A better solution, I and many others think, is to simply assume that mind and matter are one reality, not two separate worlds. This also seems realistic, as we never encounter a bunch immaterial minds running around. OK, what about matter? As I believe I mentioned I see no hard-and-fast dividing line between he living and the nonliving or the inorganic and the inorganic, or anything like that. I also hold with evolution. Therefore, I believe that what is the case at the top of the scale is also the case at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser extent. It, on fair, then, that we extend psychological principles down the scale, to explain things. Also, as I said in an earlier post, all perceived characteristics of the external, material world are qualities of feelings. Unless there are feelings out there, I haven't got an inkling what's going on. I'm perceiving what isn't there. Now, I'm still puzzled where you stand. Are you what's called an idealist? Are you holding the eternal world is nothing more than a figment of our imaginations, doesn't really exist, time, space, etc., exist no place else than in the mind of the perceiver, and if not there, then in the mind of God? Are you into Berkeley or Kant, for example? I ask because more than one hardcore scientists today is, in fact, an idealist. Actually, Einstein argued time is just a figment of our imaginations, exists no place else, isn't really out there.

 

[Colter]

Indeed -- rather than seeing the Bible as God's autobiography (as too many Christians do, IMO), it should be seen as a historical record of a people trying (and often falling short) to understand the "God" experience they believed was revealed to them.

We see the people in the Bible fail time and again -- and it is from that stock that the authors came from... dare we call them infallible?

Good point, I've often pointed out that the same vein of imperfect men in the Christian churches history were the writiers of scripture in the past.

We would likely all agree that the newspaper isn't the news, it's about the news as facts were gathered, witnesses interviewed, conclusions and speculation included, further sorted through the bias of the journalist. The Bible books are about the purported doings of God as those events were accurately retold and understood.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Good point, I've often pointed out that the same vein of imperfect men in the Christian churches history were the writiers of scripture in the past.

We would likely all agree that the newspaper isn't the news, it's about the news as facts were gathered, witnesses interviewed, conclusions and speculation included, further sorted through the bias of the journalist. The Bible books are about the purported doings of God as those events were accurately retold and understood.

Funny you should make the "news" comparison... I've found that many of the people who believe an inerrant Bible are the same sort over on the politics forums howling over "media bias."

 

[driewerf]

Then whether theistic evolution is true or not is not a matter of faith in God or the Bible, but rather a matter of accepting or not accepting an evolutionary worldview as well as God and the Bible. Personally, I believe the Bible when it says God created a multitude of different kinds of organisms within a few days.

The theistic part is a matter of faith. The evolution part a matter of science. Quit a lot of people can reconcile both.

 

[BobRyan]

What reason is there to accept the creation account?

you mean... "if you are atheist or agnostic - why believe the creation account in the Bible"??

As someone here has already noted - they don't like the idea of a short meaningless life - but would prefer to live forever.

 

[BobRyan]

OK, I'll try this nice and slow. That is an interesting and very important point, PsychoSarah. Evolution is not about brutal competition. There is a definite altruistic side to it. Bacteria have been known to exhibit altruistic behavior. I posit all entities have feelings and empathy for one another. .

i guess - once you start making stuff up - there is no limit.

 

[BobRyan]

If you need evolution to be the explanation you will defend it in all ways possible. If you can accept God, you don't need evolution, though you might accept it, but there isn't reason to dismiss the creation account.

Indeed it makes far more sense for a Christian to believe the Bible - rather than deny it.

Hence the OP.

 

[BobRyan]

That's not what they said at all, you are quoting propaganda from evolutionary double-talk websites. This is what they said:

"As well, it has been demonstrated that even at the molecular level, the various "species" of Geospiza are indistinguishable. Studies involving both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA were unable to separate finches of this "genus" into their six "species." This result is "uncharacteristic of nearly all other avian species and genera. . . . there is little evidence for clear species limits within Geospiza . . . irrespective of whether one uses biological, phylogenetic, genealogical, or evolutionary species concepts. . . . [It might be that] each genus is [just] a polymorphic species" (Zink, pp. 867-868).

What this is is a case of the evolutionists trying to double-talk their way out of a clear error in classification because they don't want to admit to any errors at all out of fear it will harm their cause.

Just own up to the mistake and move on.

Even the Grants - staunch supporters of evolution called it into question.

"The discovery of superior hybrid fitness over several years suggests that the three study populations of Darwin's finches are fusing into a single panmictic population, and calls into question their designation as species." (Grant and Grant, 1992, p. 196)

But instead of just saying yah, Darwin made a mistake 100 some years ago - instead you continue to try to double-talk your way out of it. They were instrumental in helping him devise his theory. Apparently you have never read Darwin's books on the origin of species to make such blatant misrepresentations about what Darwin said. Please stop with the double-talk to avoid admitting to what in reality is a simple mistake that you yourselves have caused to be blown out of proportion by refusing to admit to such a simple little mistake. Although he let Gould convince him of their being separate species when at first Darwin rejected te idea of transmutation of species, but later came to accept it and after developed the concept of origin of species.

Because if you can't be trusted to admit the truth in this tiny little mistake - you certainly can't be trusted with the larger truths. And so by refusing to admit to this mistake - you are only destroying any credibility that might remain among evolutionists.

You are right. When "all news is good news" you know you have junk-science and poor-religion by the tail.

 

[TLK Valentine]

you mean... "if you are atheist or agnostic - why believe the creation account in the Bible"??

As someone here has already noted - they don't like the idea of a short meaningless life - but would prefer to live forever.

Sounds like a person should accept whatever makes them feel better about themselves and their lives... regardless of truth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't think you quite get the picture, Justa. Nice try, but no banana. The Grants have stated that the DNA differences were not as large as one might expect. That is what they are talking about here. As I mentioned in my previous post, they concluded that such similarities suggested that interbreeding was possible among different species. However, Peter Grant has also stated," During our fieldwork on the Galapagos we have observed many examples of hybridization between species of Darwin's finches but the long-term evolutionary effects have been unknown. Now we can safely conclude that interspecies hybridization has played a crucial role in the evolution of the finches and has contributed to their diversity." Also they published a scientific paper, "Inbreeding and Interbreeding in Darwin's Finches," in which they addressed matters concerning "the two inbreeding species." They have also concluded that" if unchecked, hybridization could lead to the fusion of species into one population."

And hence your problem - thinking they are separate species to begin with. They are not hybridizing - they are interbreeding between the very same species - just different infraspecific taxa within that species.

Double-talk is all you people have to try to justify ignoring your own scientific definitions.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Regardless of your and their double-talk - they are of the same species. Any locally traits developed that adapt them to their environment simply subdivide them into infraspecific taxa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Now you can continue to try to double-talk your way around the issue - and expect nothing but that, but the scientific definitions written by evolutionists themselves support my contention and not yours or theirs. Yes - they "CLAIM" they are separate species, but the second they go against their own scientific definitions they are no longer practicing science - but pseudo-science.

As I said - you people just continue to dig the hole deeper by refusing to admit to this little mistake - and just destroy your credibility by refusing to follow the very criteria you set to define species. All out of fear.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are right. When "all news is good news" you know you have junk-science and poor-religion by the tail.

Exactly what it is - religion. A religion that can't even follow the very book they wrote or the scientific definitions they wrote. If one refuses to follow one's own scientific definitions then science stops being done. It gets to the point where one can claim anything one wants because there are no definitions to follow.

All news is good news because they ignore the very scientific definitions they claim to follow.

 

[TLK Valentine]

i guess - once you start making stuff up - there is no limit.

Indeed -- you can escape from any unpleasant reality, even the temporary nature of life itself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You are right. When "all news is good news" you know you have junk-science and poor-religion by the tail.

Any result is a result -- we learn from failures, not from successes.

 

[BobRyan]

Any result is a result -- we learn from failures, not from successes.

If you interpret every result as success - then you will never find the right solution.

The way to "learn" from a failing result -- is to admit to failure and try something different.