Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[shernren]

Either you accept that the experimenter is affecting the experiment through using a light, or not.

If he is, we can actually take precautions against that influence - as you note.

But it doesn't negate that he could influence it.

In fact the little critters could act differently in relation to the chemical too!

Yes, the researcher affects the experiment with light. The light - not the researcher - causes the altered outcome. The researcher's causation is at one remove; light without the researcher would also cause the altered outcome, while the researcher without the light would not cause the altered outcome.

Similarly, if you think pigeon breeding is disanalogous to natural selection, you have to identify the particular action of the pigeon breeder which disallows the analogy. Otherwise, the breeder's causation is at one remove, and selection without the breeder (i.e. natural selection) would also cause selective fixation of alleles, while random breeding without any selection whatsoever (with or without the presence of a breeder) would not cause selective fixation of alleles.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, the researcher affects the experiment with light. The light - not the researcher - causes the altered outcome.

Semantics. The light couldn't have got there without the person putting it there and turning it on in order to observe

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A few posts were removed in a mini thread clean up. It is quite possible a further cleaning will take place. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Also, if you believe a post is in violation of board rules please report it do not reply to it.

Please remember the Board Rules when posting.


Documentation of thread clean up is HERE for staff only!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Montalban]

To claim the researcher doesn't affect the observed little critters, because the light does is like saying a chef doesn't actually bake a pie, the oven does. Or, that a soldier didn't actually shoot the enemy, the gun did.

 

[shernren]

Semantics. The light couldn't have got there without the person putting it there and turning it on in order to observe

Yes it can. For example, we may be comparing the behavior of bacteria in a sunlit puddle with the behavior of bacteria in a dark puddle at night; or we could be comparing the behavior of bacteria in a microscope experiment (under strong illumination) with the behavior of bacteria in a chemosensing experiment (where you detect the bacteria's presence via the chemical evidence left behind, and thus don't use light).

In both cases, the presence of light - irrespective of whether or not it was induced by an experimenter - affects the behavior of the bacteria.

To claim the researcher doesn't affect the observed little critters, because the light does is like saying a chef doesn't actually bake a pie, the oven does. Or, that a soldier didn't actually shoot the enemy, the gun did.

Yes, the oven bakes the pie - or would it get baked if the chef focused his psionic brain waves on it instead?

Yes, the gun shoots the enemy - or would the enemy have fell down screaming if the soldier had focused his psionic brain waves on him instead?

When you hold a hammer everything looks like a nail; and when you're dead bent on imagining that the free action of human being can somehow short-circuit our usual ideas of causation (because you can't think of any other way to discredit the idea of natural selection), you'll imagine that human free action determines everything. And yet it is still true that a chef without an oven cannot bake a pie, a soldier without a gun cannot shoot an enemy, and a scientist without a strong source of illumination cannot agitate phototaxic bacteria. The physical, not the mental, is always the proximate cause.

Of course, your example are example of human agency but only because there are no natural analogues of the physical causes which these humans create. It's fairly easy to illuminate a colony of bacteria; harder to create a consistent temperature of 210 degrees C for several minutes; and it's just about impossible for you to expect a cylinder of metal to barrel right through your heart at a few meters per second. In those cases where peculiar physical causes correlate only with human intent, and never with non-intentional situations, we properly associate the causation with human intent.

Even so, I could clearly come up with counter-examples that illustrate how absurd your comparison is:

To claim the researcher doesn't affect the observed little critters, because the light does is like saying a chef doesn't actually make me full, a pie does. Or, that the pharmaceutical company didn't actually help my headache get better, the Panadol did.​

The question, of course, is: which of these is natural selection more like? Until you show me how pigeon breeding is physically substantially different from natural selection - other than the presence of human intent, which I have already shown is by itself irrelevant - you haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[Smidlee]

But what of the conclusions?

I give up what? USA court system is corrupt?

 

[SkyWriting]

By biblical account of creation, do you mean belief in a literal 6 day (24 hours in a day) creation (young Earth)?

Or are you indicating that there are Christians that don't believe that God created everything?

The Scriptures never even hint that the Earth would be "young".
Just as Jesus made "finished" wine, the whole of Creation
also tastes like a completed product.

When Jesus raised the dead, they didn't restart as a Zygote.
We shouldn't expect a Zygote earth either.

 

[SkyWriting]

After breeding only pigeons of the desired beak length, you find that the trait finally runs true in a particular lineage.

Did the various beaks all look like beaks or did they turn randomly every which direction? It must have took some serious engineering to keep all the possible variations from being worthless.

I've done a fair amount of design and programming.
Nothing happens by chance that has any value.
Lots and lots of Core-Dumps with one little mistake.

 

[Montalban]

I give up what? USA court system is corrupt?

ROFL

 

[chris4243]

I've done a fair amount of design and programming.
Nothing happens by chance that has any value.
Lots and lots of Core-Dumps with one little mistake.

How well would your fancy intelligently designed computer program work, if every few years (generation), random errors at a rate of about 1 in 100,000 were introduced into your computer code?

 

[Montalban]

How well would your fancy intelligently designed computer program work, if every few years (generation), random errors at a rate of about 1 in 100,000 were introduced into your computer code?

What do you think of biomorphs?

 

[shernren]

Did the various beaks all look like beaks or did they turn randomly every which direction? It must have took some serious engineering to keep all the possible variations from being worthless.

I've done a fair amount of design and programming.
Nothing happens by chance that has any value.
Lots and lots of Core-Dumps with one little mistake.

But have you ever designed a frequency discriminator before?

Evolution has.

I conclude that you have a novel view of the law. All those murders have been falsely accused because they didn't do it, the knife, poison, bomb or bullet killed the person!

Actually, my view is in perfect concordance with the standard English legal definition of causation. You are conveniently leaving out what I said:

In those cases where peculiar physical causes correlate only with human intent, and never with non-intentional situations, we properly associate the causation with human intent.

Yes, soldiers do shoot people, and chefs do cook pies, because guns and ovens normally don't work without human intervention. As Wikipedia elaborates:

The usual method of establishing factual causation is the but-for test. The but for test inquires ‘But for the defendant’s act, would the harm have occurred?’ A shoots and wounds B. We ask ‘But for A's act, would B have been wounded?’ The answer is ‘No.’ So we conclude that A caused the harm to B. The but for test is a test of necessity. It asks was it ‘necessary’ for the defendant’s act to have occurred for the harm to have occurred. (Causation)​

But there are also cases in which it really is just a gun, and not a shooter, which causes damage:

The classic example is that of a father who gives his child a loaded gun, which she carelessly drops upon the plaintiff’s foot, causing injury. The plaintiff argues that it is negligent to give a child a loaded gun and that such negligence caused the injury, but this argument fails, for the injury did not result from the risk that made the conduct negligent. The risk that made the conduct negligent was the risk of the child accidentally firing the shotgun; the harm suffered could just as easily have resulted from handing the child an unloaded gun. (Proximate cause)​

Heavy objects can fall on children's feet without human intervention, so there is (rightly) no judgment of negligence in this case. See?

In the same way, light can be shone on puddles of phototaxic bacteria with, or without, experimenter intervention; therefore, one concludes that it is the light which scares the bacteria, not directly the researcher.

And in the same way, selective effects can act on the genome of a species with, or without, experimenter intervention; therefore, one concludes that it is rightly selection which is said to change the genome, experimenter or no experimenter, the selection merely acting in a different direction when the experimenter has some quixotic goal in mind.

 

[chris4243]

What do you think of biomorphs?

Biomorphs? A toy for demonstrating the effects of (artificial) selection plus absurdly strong mutation. Mutation rates that high would be deadly, except that the biomorph is not self-contained -- only a few variables (about 6 bytes of data) are allowed to mutate, and the program that interprets those into art remains unchanged. Still, it is analogous to the mechanism for evolution -- it has imperfect replication, with different reproductive success based on the inherited traits.

 

[Montalban]

Biomorphs? A toy for demonstrating the effects of (artificial) selection plus absurdly strong mutation. Mutation rates that high would be deadly, except that the biomorph is not self-contained -- only a few variables (about 6 bytes of data) are allowed to mutate, and the program that interprets those into art remains unchanged. Still, it is analogous to the mechanism for evolution -- it has imperfect replication, with different reproductive success based on the inherited traits.

It's not analogous in the sense Dawkins uses them - because he suggests that 'we' the user of the program do the selecting.

I covered this earlier in the thread

 

[artybloke]

N


But, I still have concern that some may see greater portions of the scripture as poetic, open to their own interpretations, and that may result in not having a saving understanding of the gospel.

Why does calling something 'poetic' mean it's open to their own interpretation? (Speaking as a poet, I'm willing to accept that my poems (and the Bible) are open to wider interpretation than a science text, but it ain't so open that it can mean anything the reader likes, surely.

 

[rockytopva]

I have been meditating on a timeline on all of this...

1. Eternity - First we have eternity... Which we humans cannot understand.
2. Three groups of Angels led by three arch angels
--- Michael - Strong Angels
--- Gabriel - Wise Angels
--- Lucifer - Worshiping Angels
3. A rebellion in which Lucifer takes a third of the angels with him. - Revelation 12: 3, 4
4. A universe is created...
---The big bang - Gen 1:3
---The universe scatters - Gen 1:4
---I believe that billions of years passed until God called the light day and the darkness light.
---Five additional days of creation - In which we now have Adam.


It is of my beliefs that this universe was created in response to the fall of Lucifer. I believe that Lucifer and his angels grew accustomed to the Fathers light and energies and then began to hate it. When they fell I believe that they were stripped of their remaining light and energy in which they have substituted the true light and energy for the light called ego and arrogance.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. - Matt 19: 23,24

One of the reasons why so few people get the true Baptism of the Holy Ghost these days is because all that ego cannot make it through the eye of the needle!

Holy Ghost Baptism (w/ Darlene Zschech): Seymour-Azusa Street - YouTube

 

[SkyWriting]

I was taught theistic evolution in sunday school, but we were also taught how some Christians are YEC creationists, day-age creationists, support the Gap idea, or are OECs. After seeing creationist after creationist get on this board and appear to have no understanding of evolution and theistic evolution beyond vilification and strawmen (at best), I have to wonder what creationist supporting Churches are teaching in Sunday School - are they informing the kids about how other Christians may see things? It doesn't seem like it. When a church or group keeps it's members in line by keeping them ignorant, it doesn't reflect well on their position, at least to me.

You are very concerned about how people look at you and what they think about other groups....yada yada yada. A very liberal focus type of church. I grew up in one.

Other churches focus on God's word and have little concern about what people think. My kind o churches.

 

[Papias]

Skywriting wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

I was taught theistic evolution in sunday school, but we were also taught how some Christians are YEC creationists, day-age creationists, support the Gap idea, or are OECs. After seeing creationist after creationist get on this board and appear to have no understanding of evolution and theistic evolution beyond vilification and strawmen (at best), I have to wonder what creationist supporting Churches are teaching in Sunday School - are they informing the kids about how other Christians may see things? It doesn't seem like it. When a church or group keeps it's members in line by keeping them ignorant, it doesn't reflect well on their position, at least to me.

You are very concerned about how people look at you and what they think about other groups....yada yada yada. A very liberal focus type of church. I grew up in one.

​

I didn't say anything about being concerned about how people look at me?

Yes, we did learn about how various people interpreted scripture, because we recognized that we are just humans, and our interpretation may be wrong - thus, our discussion of various interpretations gives the most honor to God's word, by keeping God's word above any particular interpretation.

Other churches focus on God's word and have little concern about what people think. My kind o churches.

So in other words, your kind o church preaches only your own interpretation, keeping people ignorant about other interpretations, and setting up your own human interpretation as being on par with the word of God itself.

Thanks for providing an example to go with my earlier statement.

Papias
​

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Skywriting wrote:

I didn't say anything about being concerned about how people look at me?

Yes, we did learn about how various people interpreted scripture, because we recognized that we are just humans, and our interpretation may be wrong - thus, our discussion of various interpretations gives the most honor to God's word, by keeping God's word above any particular interpretation.​

The Church's interpretation of scripture in regard to doctrine cannot be wrong,because the Church is infallible by the grace of God in regard to doctrines of faith and morals. If you were taught from an attitude of relativism or doubt towards the teachings of the Church,you were taught wrongly. The Church teaches that God created all things through his Logos,which means reason,not that God created species through processes of evolution.

​

 

[metherion]

The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."171 Far from diminishing the creature's dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God's power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a Creator the creature vanishes."172 Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God's grace.173

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

The Church teaching that God created all things through Logos is not presented as contradictory to God using secondary causes such as His other creations, which would include evolution.

Metherion