Evolutionary PRATTS

[Dal M.]

I'm surprised there aren't any creationists contributing to this thread. Is it possible that they have no way of distinguishing between a good pro-evolution argument and a bad one?

 

[Corey]

One I see very often here is this:

"Bats are not birds, therefore genesis is wrong"

Which is a pointless argument because genesis is written in ancient hebrew not english. In ancient hebrew birds would apparently be inclusive of bats. It's entirely a semantic issue.

Actually. It is a relevant argument if you are arguing against someone who believes the Bible is the literal Word of God. It would require God to make a mistake regarding natural history (and being omniscience a mistake he would not make). Therefore, either God is not omniscience or the Bible is not the literal Word of God.

 

[Dal M.]

Actually. It is a relevant argument if you are arguing against someone who believes the Bible is the literal Word of God. It would require God to make a mistake regarding natural history (and being omniscience a mistake he would not make). Therefore, either God is not omniscience or the Bible is not the literal Word of God.

In which case the problem is translation. It's entirely possible to say that the original Hebrew was correct (I mean, what's Linnean classification to a bronze-age Middle Easterner? Bats may well have fit under the definition of the Hebrew equivalent of "bird"), and that the English translation just mucked it up. The only way this doesn't work is if, like AV1611VET, you insist that the King James translation is superior to the ancient Hebrew, in which case you need to come up with all sorts of ridiculous justifications as to why the obvious mistakes aren't mistakes at all.

 

[Naraoia]

I disagree that this is a PRATT. All because Creationists have an answer does not mean it is a correct one; in this case it is not. Bible scholars who do not have a literalist agenda agree that Gen 1 and 2 were indeed written at different times by different people (do to different word usage and literary styles) and then spliced together later.

How does "written at different times by different people" equal "contradict each other"?

 

[Split Rock]

How does "written at different times by different people" equal "contradict each other"?

It does not. The text shows this, most clearly in the order of creation. My point is that is they are written at different times, then they most likely represent two different creation stories, rather than parts of the same story that reflect different viewpoints (general vs. detailed) as maintained by most YECs.

 

[Naraoia]

It does not. The text shows this, most clearly in the order of creation. My point is that is they are written at different times, then they most likely represent two different creation stories, rather than parts of the same story that reflect different viewpoints (general vs. detailed) as maintained by most YECs.

Aham, but didn't you originally argue that "Gen 1 and Gen 2 contradict each other" is not a PRATT? The fact that they come from different sources alone doesn't support that point, which I thought you wanted to make

Apparently it wasn't quite the point you wanted to make, but you didn't make that overly obvious

"Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other!"

The above is a true PRATT, as it is espoused by well-meaning evolutionists who haven't heard the trite-but-true explanation: Hebrew is poetic, and repitition is used to add emphasis. Moreover, Genesis 1 details the creation of the universe, and Genesis 2 begins with a brief recap of the events in Genesis 1.

I disagree that this is a PRATT. All because Creationists have an answer does not mean it is a correct one; in this case it is not. Bible scholars who do not have a literalist agenda agree that Gen 1 and 2 were indeed written at different times by different people (do to different word usage and literary styles) and then spliced together later.

 

[Split Rock]

Aham, but didn't you originally argue that "Gen 1 and Gen 2 contradict each other" is not a PRATT? The fact that they come from different sources alone doesn't support that point, which I thought you wanted to make

Apparently it wasn't quite the point you wanted to make, but you didn't make that overly obvious

The idea put forth by WC is that it is a PRATT based on the creationist explanation that they are the same story, just emphasizing different aspects. My response was that since they are two different stories written at different times, that explanation does not fly.

 

[sfs]

Actually. It is a relevant argument if you are arguing against someone who believes the Bible is the literal Word of God. It would require God to make a mistake regarding natural history (and being omniscience a mistake he would not make). Therefore, either God is not omniscience or the Bible is not the literal Word of God.

That's only true if the Hebrew classification is a mistake. Why is it a mistake? Why should natural language categories correspond to monophyletic clades? By this standard, any use of the word "tree" that includes pine trees is an error.

 

[Corey]

In which case the problem is translation. It's entirely possible to say that the original Hebrew was correct (I mean, what's Linnean classification to a bronze-age Middle Easterner? Bats may well have fit under the definition of the Hebrew equivalent of "bird"), and that the English translation just mucked it up. The only way this doesn't work is if, like AV1611VET, you insist that the King James translation is superior to the ancient Hebrew, in which case you need to come up with all sorts of ridiculous justifications as to why the obvious mistakes aren't mistakes at all.

No.

It comes down to a very simple fact for Biblical Literalism. If God is the author of the Bible then you would expect it to conform to what nature actually is (e.g., pi ~= 3.14--not 3; rabbits don't chew cud, etc.). However that is not the case. You're focusing on this wrongly. The bats are birds verses (and other errors of natural philosphy & mathematics) serve to disconfirm a purely literal reading of the bible.

You're attempts to note linguistics differences serve to highlight the Bible as the work of human authors.

 

[Corey]

That's only true if the Hebrew classification is a mistake. Why is it a mistake? Why should natural language categories correspond to monophyletic clades? By this standard, any use of the word "tree" that includes pine trees is an error.

Well...let's think about it for a minute. Bat are mammals. They have hair...an extremely different anatomical structure compared to feathers. Bats use echolocation. Birds don't.

There are other rather obvious differences than an omniscient deity would not make (i.e., if it knows everything why wouldn't it know this). If the Bible is authored by God (who's supposed to be omniscient), why is there this glaring error (among others), translations notwithstanding. They answer is either God is not omniscient or the Bible is not literally the Word of God.

Please bear in mind that this is only one error in natural philosophy and mathematics in the Bible. Others include pi=3 and rabbits chewing cud.

 

[Naraoia]

Well...let's think about it for a minute. Bat are mammals. They have hair...an extremely different anatomical structure compared to feathers. Bats use echolocation. Birds don't.

Cherry trees have flowers. Pine trees have not. Pretty profound difference... I'm with sfs on this.

There are other rather obvious differences than an omniscient deity would not make (i.e., if it knows everything why wouldn't it know this). If the Bible is authored by God (who's supposed to be omniscient), why is there this glaring error (among others), translations notwithstanding. They answer is either God is not omniscient or the Bible is not literally the Word of God.

Or that the word of God used something other than synapomorphies to classify living organisms. Perhaps God knew but didn't care?

Please bear in mind that this is only one error in natural philosophy and mathematics in the Bible. Others include pi=3 and rabbits chewing cud.

Well, rabbits do chew... not quite what cows chew, but the same food they had already swallowed nonetheless

 

[Corey]

Cherry trees have flowers. Pine trees have not. Pretty profound difference... I'm with sfs on this.

For an apprentice biologist (as per your title), this is rather disingenuous. Hair and feathers are completely different structures even using Mark 1 eyeball. Moreover, wing structures are vastly different as are facial features. This is grade school stuff here, not population genetics.

Again, assuming an omniscient god literally telling his chosen people his word, you would expect accuracy.

Or that the word of God used something other than synapomorphies to classify living organisms. Perhaps God knew but didn't care?

It comes down to Biblical Literalism. If the Bible makes implicit claims about natural events, then for Literalism to be true, the claims must match what is found in nature.

Well, rabbits do chew... not quite what cows chew, but the same food they had already swallowed nonetheless

Again...disingenuousness. Cud is literally regurgitated food. Rabbits do not do this.

 

[Vance]

Luckily, only fundamentalist Christians and those few atheists influenced by them (or who just like strawman versions of Christianity to knock down) think that the Bible was meant to be read as a literal science book, or that early Genesis was meant as literal historic narrative.

 

[sfs]

For an apprentice biologist (as per your title), this is rather disingenuous. Hair and feathers are completely different structures even using Mark 1 eyeball. Moreover, wing structures are vastly different as are facial features. This is grade school stuff here, not population genetics.

Well, yes, it does strike me as grade school stuff. You learned in grade school (or earlier) that bats and birds are really different things, and that pine trees and maple trees are really the same thing, and you want to apply that categorization to another language and culture, but you haven't given any good reason for doing so. Sure, feathers and fur are very different structures, but so are needles and leaves, or flowers and pine cones.

It comes down to Biblical Literalism. If the Bible makes implicit claims about natural events, then for Literalism to be true, the claims must match what is found in nature.

But you haven't identified any implicit claims about natural events, at least not with bats and birds. (Rabbits not chewing the cud is more arguable.) Grouping bats and birds with a single word makes precisely zero claims about natural events. It is a linguistic category, and need have nothing to do any biological grouping at all. If a group of people find it convenient to use one word to describe all tetrapods with wings, there is nothing either accurate or inaccurate about that choice.

Oh, and if pi is not equal to 3, it's also not equal to 3.14. The text doesn't say that it's equal to 3, of course. What it does is give measurements. Those measurements, as stated, are entirely consistent with a correct value of pi.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well...let's think about it for a minute. Bat are mammals. They have hair...an extremely different anatomical structure compared to feathers. Bats use echolocation. Birds don't.

Birds and bats are both vertebrates and amniotes.

Please bear in mind that this is only one error in natural philosophy and mathematics in the Bible. Others include pi=3 and rabbits chewing cud.

That's another one I don't like, the pi=3 bit. If you want to be anal I guess it is wrong, but c'mon. We give gross measurements all of the time in every day communications. For example, "The Sun is 92 million miles away from the Earth". There is nothing wrong with that statement even though the Sun is not EXACTLY 92 million miles from the Sun, and the distance between the Earth and the Sun changes by 4% over the course of a year.

Archimedes might have a problem with pi=3, but it really has no place in these discussions.

 

[Corey]

Well, yes, it does strike me as grade school stuff. You learned in grade school (or earlier) that bats and birds are really different things, and that pine trees and maple trees are really the same thing...

No. Pine and maple are also vastly different to the Mark 1 eyeball as well as on a phylogenic level.

and you want to apply that categorization to another language and culture, but you haven't given any good reason for doing so.

You continue to ignore an important premise, namely that if a god is omniscient, a book supposedly its literal Word will reflect how reality is. If you want to state that Genesis is literally how the universe and life came to be (i.e., Creationism), then you have to explain how an omniscient god was blatantly incorrect in the rest of his literal Word regarding aspects of his creation.

But you haven't identified any implicit claims about natural events, at least not with bats and birds. (Rabbits not chewing the cud is more arguable.) Grouping bats and birds with a single word makes precisely zero claims about natural events.

13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;15 Every raven after his kind;16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. [emphasis added]

The Bible places bats among the "fowl" the Hebrews cannot eat. Fowl are bird. QED, the Bible claims bats are birds. This is a statement about something in natural philosophy (i.e., god's creation) that is blatantly false. You would expect the creator of a reality to know what the components of it are.

It is a linguistic category, and need have nothing to do any biological grouping at all. If a group of people find it convenient to use one word to describe all tetrapods with wings, there is nothing either accurate or inaccurate about that choice.

No. THere isn't. However (and again), you keep ignoring that this disproves the Bible is the Literal Word of the Christian God.

Oh, and if pi is not equal to 3, it's also not equal to 3.14. The text doesn't say that it's equal to 3, of course. What it does is give measurements. Those measurements, as stated, are entirely consistent with a correct value of pi.

23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Circumference = 2*radius * pi.
Diameter = 2* radius.
C=pi*d

A cubit is a rather large measurement, being approximately 18 inches in some measurements (but typically consider a forearm length). Pi is approximately 3.14 (at 3 significant figures). If the "molten sea" was 10 cubits across the circumference would be approximately 31 cubits (rounding down to 2 sigfigs).

Again we run into the issue of literalism. If it was round all about, then it would measure 31 cubits. If the missing cubit is due to imperfections, then literalism would require the verse to say it was "sort of round" or the equivalent. Two different cubit standards are precluded because it is a single object under consideration (and therefore likely to have used the same measure).

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

What do the following have in common: cuttlefish, jellyfish, and starfish.

if some culture 2000 years in the future decided to take those words as literal, what problems would they fall into?

 

[Corey]

Birds and bats are both vertebrates and amniotes.

Have you read the verses that imply bats are birds?

That's another one I don't like, the pi=3 bit. If you want to be anal I guess it is wrong, but c'mon. We give gross measurements all of the time in every day communications. For example, "The Sun is 92 million miles away from the Earth". There is nothing wrong with that statement even though the Sun is not EXACTLY 92 million miles from the Sun, and the distance between the Earth and the Sun changes by 4% over the course of a year.

That is not an accurate analogy. In that case, you have the problem of scale. It's rather large and so approximation makes it simpler. However, in the case of the pi=3 verse, the scale is not so large as to preclude the proper measurement.

92M miles is approximately 1 AU. If I was to be as accurate as the Bible in measuring the Sun=Mars distance, I would say that the distance is 1 AU.

Archimedes might have a problem with pi=3, but it really has no place in these discussions.[/quote]

 

[sfs]

No. Pine and maple are also vastly different to the Mark 1 eyeball as well as on a phylogenic level.

So you do think that using the word "tree" for pine trees is a mistake. You have an odd notion of how language is supposed to be used.

You continue to ignore an important premise, namely that if a god is omniscient, a book supposedly its literal Word will reflect how reality is. If you want to state that Genesis is literally how the universe and life came to be (i.e., Creationism), then you have to explain how an omniscient god was blatantly incorrect in the rest of his literal Word regarding aspects of his creation.

I haven't ignored that premise; I just deny that you have identified a mistake in this case.

The Bible places bats among the "fowl" the Hebrews cannot eat.

Yes.

Fowl are bird.

No, "fowl" are whatever group of organisms ancient speakers of Hebrew meant by that word (whatever it might be in Hebrew). Your argument goes astray at this point.

No. THere isn't. However (and again), you keep ignoring that this disproves the Bible is the Literal Word of the Christian God.

So it's accurate for people to use a single word to name both bats and birds, but also an error for a book to use the same word to name the same two sets of animals. Um, huh?

Circumference = 2*radius * pi.
Diameter = 2* radius.
C=pi*d

A cubit is a rather large measurement, being approximately 18 inches in some measurements (but typically consider a forearm length). Pi is approximately 3.14 (at 3 significant figures). If the "molten sea" was 10 cubits across the circumference would be approximately 31 cubits (rounding down to 2 sigfigs).

Well, yes. And if the molten sea was 9.7 cubits across, the circumference would be 30 cubits. So the diameter was 10 cubits and the circumference was 30, rounding to the nearest unit, as one commonly does. Given the way measurements are actually used, the quoted values could easily be correct.

Now one could argue that the need to round off shows that very concept of inerrancy (as held by fundamentalists, at least) is incoherent, but that's a different argument. One I'd likely agree with, by the way.

 

[Corey]

So you do think that using the word "tree" for pine trees is a mistake. You have an odd notion of how language is supposed to be used.

No...you equivocated on their sameness. They clearly aren't.

I haven't ignored that premise; I just deny that you have identified a mistake in this case.

I don't think so. When you get right down to it, you have to ignore parsimony in order to accept their classification. The only obvious characteristic a bat shares with birds is flight. It has far more in common on a visual level with mammals.

No, "fowl" are whatever group of organisms ancient speakers of Hebrew meant by that word (whatever it might be in Hebrew). Your argument goes astray at this point.

No it doesn't. Here's how it is. If you want to say the Bible is the literal word of god (the creator of the universe), it's reasonable to expect it'd get some basic things correct.

So it's accurate for people to use a single word to name both bats and birds, but also an error for a book to use the same word to name the same two sets of animals. Um, huh?

Only if the book is supposed to be inerrant literal word of the creator of the universe.

Well, yes. And if the molten sea was 9.7 cubits across, the circumference would be 30 cubits. So the diameter was 10 cubits and the circumference was 30, rounding to the nearest unit, as one commonly does. Given the way measurements are actually used, the quoted values could easily be correct. Now one could argue that the need to round off shows that very concept of inerrancy (as held by fundamentalists, at least) is incoherent, but that's a different argument. One I'd likely agree with, by the way.

I think it's the same argument.