Evolutionary PRATTS

[Loudmouth]

Have you read the verses that imply bats are birds?

If "bird" meant "flying vertebrate" bats would be birds. Given the laxness of colloquial taxons I don't think we should be picking on the Bible or creationists on this one.

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.

pi=3 is only 5% off of the correct value. This is pretty darn close to the same fudge factor used for the distance between the Earth and Sun.

92M miles is approximately 1 AU.

The Earth spends a very short amount of time at the 92 million mile mark. At apogee the Earth is at 94 million miles and 90 million at perigee (give or take ).

 

[FishFace]

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.

It was probably meant as literally as any other myth, to be fair.

 

[Vance]

It was probably meant as literally as any other myth, to be fair.

Right, and "myth" in the true sense of the word, has nothing at all to do with the truth or falsity of the text. It is merely a style of writing, which can contain truth or not. We Christians should believe that the true message of the accounts are just that, true, even if they are not conveying (and not meant to convey) literal historic narrative. When the Bible is reduced to mere mundane recitations of facts, it is reduced indeed.

 

[Corey]

If "bird" meant "flying vertebrate" bats would be birds. Given the laxness of colloquial taxons I don't think we should be picking on the Bible or creationists on this one.

pi=3 is only 5% off of the correct value. This is pretty darn close to the same fudge factor used for the distance between the Earth and Sun.

The Earth spends a very short amount of time at the 92 million mile mark. At apogee the Earth is at 94 million miles and 90 million at perigee (give or take ).

The whole points of my posts is that if someone wants to take the Bible as the literal Word of God, then you'd expect the creator of the universe to get it right where it can be independently verified.

If it doesn't then it brings up issues regarding the creator or the literalness of the book.

 

[Vene]

The whole points of my posts is that if someone wants to take the Bible as the literal Word of God, then you'd expect the creator of the universe to get it right where it can be independently verified.

If it doesn't then it brings up issues regarding the creator or the literalness of the book.

I'm with Loudmouth here, I'd rather not quibble about semantics. Although, cud-chewing rabbits and 4 legged locusts is just silly.

 

[Vance]

The whole points of my posts is that if someone wants to take the Bible as the literal Word of God, then you'd expect the creator of the universe to get it right where it can be independently verified.

If it doesn't then it brings up issues regarding the creator or the literalness of the book.

Or the literalness of certain parts of the book. We must always remember that this is an anthology of texts, not a single book. And, the texts (or their precursors) were written over at least 1,000 years, by dozens of different authors using a variety of literary genres.

The theory of "accommodation" is the idea that God used human authors to convey the messages He intended, and allowed those authors to convey these messages in the language, style and even with the level of scientific understanding of the day, since none of these would impact the actual message being presented.

Just another perspective we need to keep in mind in this discussion, and one that I have to remind my fellow Christians about more often than the non-believer who usually seem to get this point more readily.

 

[Nathan45]

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.

It's not an issue of God not knowing, it's an issue of a word defined by hebrews.

the word bird probably just meant "flying animal exclusive of insects", which is indicated by the context. The fact that it was translated as "bird" isn't surprising, but that's not a problem with God, since he was (allegedly) writing in ancient hebrew, it's not even a problem with ancient hebrew... it's just a difference between hebrew and english.

 

[NailsII]

Or the literalness of certain parts of the book. We must always remember that this is an anthology of texts, not a single book. And, the texts (or their precursors) were written over at least 1,000 years, by dozens of different authors using a variety of literary genres.

The theory of "accommodation" is the idea that God used human authors to convey the messages He intended, and allowed those authors to convey these messages in the language, style and even with the level of scientific understanding of the day, since none of these would impact the actual message being presented.

Just another perspective we need to keep in mind in this discussion, and one that I have to remind my fellow Christians about more often than the non-believer who usually seem to get this point more readily.

On the contrary vance, such apologetics point to a much simpler possibility - that god played no part in it whatsoever.
After all, you would expect at least a snippet of wisdom to each prophet. I would anyway.
Especially Jesus - he should have known better than his peers, being god and all that.
Demons?
* shakes his head *

 

[Vance]

On the contrary vance, such apologetics point to a much simpler possibility - that god played no part in it whatsoever.
After all, you would expect at least a snippet of wisdom to each prophet. I would anyway.
Especially Jesus - he should have known better than his peers, being god and all that.
Demons?
* shakes his head *

Does wisdom require scientific understanding when scientific knowledge is not what is being conveyed? Any historian will tell you that ancient people were not less intelligent than we are, and even today we revere the wisdom of many ancient writers even though they believed some entirely false things about science. The fact that their writings might reflect these false beliefs does not in any way undermine the wisdom of their message overall, whether it comes from God in a sacred text or from the individual himself.

As for Jesus and demons, there are a couple of things. First, Jesus was not omniscient while here on earth, He said so himself. He was, in many ways, a man of his time and would have to be in order to be both fully man and fully God. Second, I have no problem with the idea of demons existing, although I am sure that in many cases the nature of the malady was entirely natural. Now, we can also take a broader viewpoint and see the concept of demons not as specific entities, but as the general evils in the world, including mental illness and diseases, etc. If that is the case, then Jesus merely dealt with them AS such evils, but in the manner that they were treated and understood by the people at the time. It would make no sense for Jesus to say "I heal you of epilepsy!" when everyone watching believed it was a demon.

On the other hand, again, I have no problem with the idea of actual demons, either.

 

[Nathan45]

I, on the other hand, do have a problem with the actual idea of demons...

I will say that it is conceivable that God putting scientific knowledge in a holy book might be like handing a toddler a revolver . Science is what got us nuclear weapons, and all.

 

[NailsII]

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.

I agree 100%.

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?

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

I will highlight some verses for you.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:23-27[/BIBLE]
compared with:
[BIBLE]genesis 2:4-9[/BIBLE]

The whole points of my posts is that if someone wants to take the Bible as the literal Word of God, then you'd expect the creator of the universe to get it right where it can be independently verified.

If it doesn't then it brings up issues regarding the creator or the literalness of the book.

Exactly my point.

 

[Vance]

I, on the other hand, do have a problem with the actual idea of demons...

I will say that it is conceivable that God putting scientific knowledge in a holy book might be like handing a toddler a revolver . Science is what got us nuclear weapons, and all.

Yes, and I can respect your position on not accepting demons. But, the concept that there are demons is not at all the same as disbelieving something for which we have actual and convincing evidence.

The underlying point is that where a text is not truly making a scientific claim (as it is not with the earth being fixed and unmoving, but as it is with the resurrection), then God allowing the author to discuss what God IS saying in terms which convey improper science should not be a problem for the validity of Scripture.

And, similarly, when strict literal historic narrative is not the intent, then a contradiction between two texts regarding literal historic issues is not a problem either. We see that in ANE cultures, they would hold to two different, and entirely contradictory creation accounts, and believe both of them to be "true". Now, were they IDIOTS and couldn't see that they were contradictory? Of course not, just as the compilers of the Genesis texts were not idiots when they put those two passages in two consecutive chapters. That fact proves that they obviously were not worried about the contradiction and that is because they were not reading it as literal history.

 

[sfs]

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

?? Is it wrong to use the same word for pines and maples or not? If it's not wrong, why isn't it wrong?

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.

If the characteristic you happen to be interested in is flight, then the most parsimonious classification is a single word for both. In any case, where on earth did you get the idea that word definitions had to be, or even should be in any sense, parsimonious? You invented your own criterion for correct language, one that you don't apply to yourself, and are trying to foist it on creationists.

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

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. How does the knowledge of the speaker affect the correctness of the usage?

I think it's the same argument.

You think the statements, "The authors of the Bible thought pi was 3" and "perfect accuracy is impossible" mean the same thing? If that's not what you mean, your statement doesn't seem to mean anything at all.

 

[Aggie]

Classic creationist illogic. What does my time on this board have to do with recognizing self indulgent nonsesne such as an entire thread devoted to your long kiss good night? How is any of your meaningless rant above related to your melodramatic desire to lie for Jesus about leaving this forum?

I don't care if you stay or go Aggie, I care more about the rainfall in Mongolia than I do about your opinion on any subject. But 8 pages of good bye? This is not Days of our Lives.

Wait… you think I’m a creationist now? Have you completely ignored everything I’ve posted since you joined this forum?

If you know this little about what I believe, perhaps you’ve at least heard of the comic series I draw. If you’re wondering why I haven’t updated it in almost a year, the biggest reason is because it seems kind of pointless for me to make fun of the fallacious creationist arguments I’ve encountered, when so many of the pro-evolution arguments I see on this board are just as bad.

 

[ReverendDG]

Did you read the entire thread? Several people asked me about this there, and I explained it. A few of them acknowledged having used some of these arguments, and using them was a mistake.

well one of them was two questions asked at the same time that hardly related to each other, so i fail to see how that was a pratt.
the second one is purely miscommunication on the creationists end not really a pratt.
3. is a pratt but its used on both sides as i said already, and religion has to be shuffled around, its not belief its religion though.
oh and dawkins is a very extreme anti-theist i wouldn't gauge anything by him its just absurd
4. is not a pratt, saying evolution is to blame for racism or something like that, i've seen that a million times

are you sure you know what a pratt is? you may consider them wrong, or false but pratts are points refuted a thousand times, if the point is hardly argued its not much of a pratt

 

[ReverendDG]

Wait… you think I’m a creationist now? Have you completely ignored everything I’ve posted since you joined this forum?

If you know this little about what I believe, perhaps you’ve at least heard of the comic series I draw. If you’re wondering why I haven’t updated it in almost a year, the biggest reason is because it seems kind of pointless for me to make fun of the fallacious creationist arguments I’ve encountered, when so many of the pro-evolution arguments I see on this board are just as bad.

oh come now you have to look hard to find bad pro-evolution arguments in comparison to the bad creationist ones.
i'm sorry that our arguments aren't up to your high standards, but when you get the same arguments every day from drive-by posters its really tiresome
then again i think fallacious is off track anyway imo

 

[Nitron]

Wait… you think I’m a creationist now? Have you completely ignored everything I’ve posted since you joined this forum?

If you know this little about what I believe, perhaps you’ve at least heard of the comic series I draw. If you’re wondering why I haven’t updated it in almost a year, the biggest reason is because it seems kind of pointless for me to make fun of the fallacious creationist arguments I’ve encountered, when so many of the pro-evolution arguments I see on this board are just as bad.

*Head explodes*

He is saying you ACT like a creationist, not that you are one.

Bye already.

 

[Aggie]

*Head explodes*

He is saying you ACT like a creationist, not that you are one.

Bye already.

He referred to me “lying for Jesus”, even though if he’s been here for six months, he should know that I don’t think Jesus was anybody important.

Read what I said in my thread about this. As long as people are discussing this specific problem about the forum, I’ll want to be part of the discussion.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Neanderthal man is based on a couple of pig's teeth found in Nevada.

 

[Naraoia]

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.

I still don't see why language should conform to modern systematics. *shrug*

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

You are assuming that a word like "bird" must refer to a taxonomical group to be accurate. What if we define "bird" to be a warm-blooded active flyer? While not the definition any sane biologist would choose, there is nothing inherently wrong with this. And by this definition calling bats "birds" is perfectly accurate.

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.

It comes down to your implicit assumptions of what "matches what is found in nature".

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

Hey, don't jump on me like that. I wasn't exactly saying that rabbits chew the cud. I tried to imply that by some lines of reasoning, they do something very similar to what ruminants do. And anyway, why are we squabbling over an English word when the original is in Hebrew?