Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Chalnoth]

Oh okay. Quite interesting.

Concerning abiogenesis: It's my personal perspective that life had no beginning. I believe that the human race and it's related species are infinitely eternal and eternally infinite. No beginning or ending. (This is not to say that the human species hasn't changed or won't change again.)

Concerning evolution: It's my personal perspective that the human species (and all other life forms) travel through various evolutionary stages. However, I believe that evolution may seem to travel either forwards or backwards. Hence, I find it equally likely that apes may descended from early humans as vice versa. Or that our current human species may have descended from greater celestial beings as opposed to neanderthals.

Well, you see, in science we can't have any perspective we want. We have to pay attention to the evidence. And the evidence says that the Earth wasn't always here, and thus life wasn't always here. It also says that the universe as we experience it wasn't always here, so there is no real possibility of any sort of "infinitely eternal" universe.

And as for evolution, there really is a definite direction of evolution that is experimentally-testable. This direction is driven by speciation: once a population has split into two separated populations for long enough, those two populations will forever after follow separate evolutionary paths. Thus we can actually go out and test and see what sorts of animals we descended from by looking at our genes as compared to other animals, and by looking at the fossil record.

 

[ReverendDG]

The Bible, or in this case, the Scriptures, has left an audit trail that leads all the way back to the writings of Moses.

I believe that God perfectly preserved His written words to us:

[bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

Starting with the infallible Hebrew, I believe the line of authorized writings goes like this:

96 AD --- completion of the Scriptures
AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Bible
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1560 Geneva Bible
AV 1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1611 King James Version --- the final version

Anything else, as they say, is just fiction.

the final version? the kjv is corrputed and you forgot the vulgate and gutenburg
the bible wasn't complete until at least the 4th century and it was all in greek

 

[VinceBlaze]

There really isn’t such things as “micro” and “macro” evolution.

By micro-evolution, I mean that which we can readily observe in our lifetime. For example, the evolution of microscopic creatures can be more readily observed over a course of a few days or weeks.

Whereas, in the context of macro-evolution (at least as I'm using the term), we cannot actually observe a transition of human beings from ancient neanderthal, on the sole basis that we weren't personally alive to see it, if it may have occured. The specific ancient event is not repeatedly observable. And it was suggested to me that something must be repeatedly observable if it is truly to be regarded as scientific.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Humans could, in the future, evolve to be more apelike. However, that possibility would be quite remote due to population size and the selective benefits of intelligence.)

I also believe that this is possible, albeit unlikely.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Starting with the infallible Hebrew,

which infallible Hebrew text?

and the Masoretic text, which is what the KJV uses, dates from the 7thC AD and is a direct competitor* to the LXX which is what Jesus, the apostles and the early church used. Most of the quotations from the OT in the NT are from the LXX, not the textual basis for the Masoretic text.

notes:
*the Masoretic text was a Jewish work designed to differentiate the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures from the Christian usage of the LXX.

 

[VinceBlaze]

One thing I find interesting is that what people now refer to as the 1611 KJV actually seems to be based on a reprint of a late 1700s version but without the 14 books which were removed in the late 1800s so for all intents and purposes what is now known as the 1611 version is not even close to the true 1611 version.

This is what I have often suspected, but wasn't quite sure.

 

[VinceBlaze]

You might also want to read the rebuttal to Ashby Camp's critique. It exposes some of the more outrageous errors that Camp makes.

Thanks much.

 

[Grummpy]

VinceBlaze

Whereas, in the context of macro-evolution (at least as I'm using the term), we cannot actually observe a transition of human beings from ancient neanderthal, on the sole basis that we weren't personally alive to see it, if it may have occured.

We may not be able to see the transition(split) in humans, but there are many such occurances happening today. One such occurance is the horse and the donkey. They are still close enough to be interfertile but their offspring(mule) is almost always sterile. The horse and donkey had, not too long ago, a common ancestor, but they are splitting into two different species that, eventually, will not be able to interbreed, thus two different species.

Grumpy

 

[VinceBlaze]

The process itself does not have to be observed.

This could be said about a big bang or creation event.

Indirect evidence pointing to the process or fact is enough.

But this does not necessarily prove a process. For example, a big bang or creation event.

We have never observed the process of germs making us ill. We have observed indirect evidence of this, ranging from people having the germ that become ill, people making anti-bodies against the germs etc. The process itself does not need to be observed to conclude that it happens from the evidence.

If the process is not directly and repeatedly observed, then we are only theorizing about it.

 

[Skaloop]

By micro-evolution, I mean that which we can readily observe in our lifetime. For example, the evolution of microscopic creatures can be more readily observed over a course of a few days or weeks.

Whereas, in the context of macro-evolution (at least as I'm using the term), we cannot actually observe a transition of human beings from ancient neanderthal, on the sole basis that we weren't personally alive to see it, if it may have occured. The specific ancient event is not repeatedly observable.

You are using your own non-standard definitions of what constitutes micro- and macro-evolution. Their standard definitions, however, do not refer to observability or length of time, but rather relative amount of change. Micro- is a small amount of change; having a slightly longer neck, for example. Macro- is a cumulation of small changes resulting in a large change, such as complete speciation.

They are inaccurate terms because macro- is merely many many occurences of micro-. The distinction between them is generally a Creationist point to allow themselves to admit the existence of variation, which is undeniable, while making an arbitrary distinction between that and its cumulative effects. It's akin to admitting that grains of sand exists, but there can not possibly be any beaches.

And it was suggested to me that something must be repeatedly observable if it is truly to be regarded as scientific.

You have been misinformed. There is much within science that is not directly observable or repeatable. However, by examining secondary evidence and effects (in evolution, that is the fossil record, genetic relationships, etc.) that can be observed, we can make predictions that can be tested, and if these predictions are borne out by experimentation, then that is indeed an observable, testable process of science.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I assumed it from your post, If yours was a reply to an earlier post I apologise for butting in.

No problem. No apologies necessary.

I was actually speaking from an entirely different context. But it's sometimes hard for people to follow if they enter halfway through the thread. It can be tiresome for people (myself included) to go back and read all of the previous posts in a thread if it starts to get several pages long.

I thought you were saying that you accepted micro-evolution but not macro-evolution -

No, I am not promoting acceptance/rejection of either one. I am merely saying that one is 'repeatedly observable' and the other is not.

Someone had suggested to me (earlier in the thread) that something must be 'repeatedly observable' for it to qualify as scientific.

which is clearly a non-sensical position as they are the same thing over different time frames.

Agreed. Yet one is repeatedly observable and the other is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

the final version? the kjv is corrputed and you forgot the vulgate and gutenburg
the bible wasn't complete until at least the 4th century and it was all in greek

Maybe yours was --- but God's line wasn't.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

By micro-evolution, I mean that which we can readily observe in our lifetime. For example, the evolution of microscopic creatures can be more readily observed over a course of a few days or weeks.

Whereas, in the context of macro-evolution (at least as I'm using the term), we cannot actually observe a transition of human beings from ancient neanderthal, on the sole basis that we weren't personally alive to see it, if it may have occured. The specific ancient event is not repeatedly observable. And it was suggested to me that something must be repeatedly observable if it is truly to be regarded as scientific.

You see, this definition is pretty much useless to a scientist. If the only difference between the two terms is whether or not we have directly observed it then, even if it happens tomorrow, it still won’t satisfy your definition (and never will). You have to have something more specific like the term speciation. We have observed speciation. As far as I can tell “macro” evolution isn’t proposed to use any other mechanisms than “micro” evolution so what is the real difference? It’s like saying that 1+1=2 is reasonable because we can observe that directly using apples while refusing to believe that continuing to add one will ever reach a number like one trillion.

All of the mechanisms that make evolution work have been observed. We can then use that knowledge to understand what we see in the fossil record. Unless someone can come up with a good (scientific) reason why evolution can only go so far then we accept what you call “macro” evolution to be provisionally true unless evidence shows otherwise. For now all the evidence points to “macro” evolution being true and there is no evidence to refute it.

Science works this way all the time. We can observe volcanic islands being formed and use that knowledge to identify other islands that were formed by a volcano even though we didn’t observe that island being made.

 

[Skaloop]

This could be said about a big bang or creation event.

Which have nothing to do with evolution.

But this does not necessarily prove a process. For example, a big bang or creation event.

To dust off an oldie, proof is for mathematics and alcohol, not science.

If the process is not directly and repeatedly observed, then we are only theorizing about it.

You are using the layman's version of theory when the scientific one is more applicable. Theories within science are not just semi-informed guesses; they are highly supported and predictive explanations of known processes. If we are "only theorizing" about evolution, then we are "only theorizing" about gravity as well. Nobody can observe gravity; we can only observe its effects and make predictions based upon those effects. We can observe a falling object, and the explanation of why it falls is a theory. We can observe speciation and changes in allele frequency, and the explanation of why that happens (differential reproductive success due to natural selection) is the theory. That evolution happens is undeniable fact. The theory that explains it may not be technically provable, but it has withstood 100% of all historical challenges over the past 150 years, and more than adequately explains all modern discoveries and new findings, without fail. Evey single bit of legitimate evidence we have ever uncovered has aligned completely with the basic theory.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If the process is not directly and repeatedly observed, then we are only theorizing about it.

This poster is using the word "theorizing" in the manner of "speculating" or "conjecturing" not in the scientific definition of creating theories.

What is at issue is the epistemological idea of justification or how to differentiation reliable from unreliable knowledge.

And he is offering two criteria for this important task: reproducibility and direct observation.

The problems with direct observation are well known, since Galileo our instruments have intervened between ourselves and the world "out there". Often people have proposed that the instruments themselves cause the problems with the unreliability of knowledge and harken back to a time of naked eye observation of the skies and a far simpler time for physics where we could actually observe the fundamental entities under study. But that is not going to happen, nor can you justify throwing out most of modern physics because you can not directly observe those things.

Not what about this issue of reproducibility?
Does evolutionary biology have to recapitulate the entire history of living creatures in a laboratory in order to establish any knowledge of the field?

The provisionalness of science is exactly this question. Science doesn't wait to "prove everything" before it begins to study and talk about things. The technique of reductionism, a kind of divide and conquer mentality, has work proceding in all kinds of subtopics and related questions while the big theories and ideas are just being formed. The demand to recapitulate the history of life on this planet before the theory can have any reliability is not just a strawman but is not how any science actually works.

But that doesn't say that big pieces of the puzzle are not reproducible, for much in the TofE is. It is saying that these two criteria just aren't what science actually uses to justify it's theories.

 

[dawiyd]

The Bible, or in this case, the Scriptures, has left an audit trail that leads all the way back to the writings of Moses.

I believe that God perfectly preserved His written words to us:

[bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

Starting with the infallible Hebrew, I believe the line of authorized writings goes like this:

96 AD --- completion of the Scriptures
AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Bible
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1560 Geneva Bible
AV 1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1611 King James Version --- the final version

Anything else, as they say, is just fiction.

Where does G-d ever give a revelation saying "the king james version is the only authorized version" I want to see where G-d specially states the KJV is authorized by G-d.

 

[Tomk80]

This could be said about a big bang or creation event.

the big bang could be a creation event, so I really do not see your point here. You seem to draw some kind of parallel between science and atheism which is not there.

But this does not necessarily prove a process. For example, a big bang or creation event.

first basic lesson in science: never is ever proven. There is always the chance that a new piece of evidence can radically change what we have always thought.

If the process is not directly and repeatedly observed, then we are only theorizing about it.

And that is a bad thing? Indirect evidence points to one conclusion and away from another. For example, when choosing between the big bang and an eternally existing universe, the cosmic background radiation points towards big bang and away from an eternal universe. The more indirect evidence we discover, the more certain our conclusion becomes. 100% certain? No. But in fields like big bang or a common ancestor for chimps and humans, definitely 99.99%.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where does G-d ever give a revelation saying "the king james version is the only authorized version" I want to see where G-d specially states the KJV is authorized by G-d.

That stuff ended in 96AD, Dawiyd --- God does not speak to us in this dispensation like He used to in others.

 

[caravelair]

That stuff ended in 96AD, Dawiyd --- God does not speak to us in this dispensation like He used to in others.

how convenient.

 

[JohnR7]

That stuff ended in 96AD, Dawiyd --- God does not speak to us in this dispensation like He used to in others.

"Use to in others"? The Bible is given to us as an example to follow. He wants to do a work in our life the same as He worked in and though the people who gave us our Bible. So He does continue to work in the lives of people today the same as He did then. Anyone that is willing to be sanctified and set apart to be used by God.

Even Jesus was fully man and everything Jesus did, we can do also, through the power of the Holy Spirit working in and though us.

So in response to the OP. We have the same Holy Spirit working in us today, that the people who gave us our Bible had working in them. So we can know the truth better than someone that does not have the Holy Spirit of truth working in them and in their life.