Paradigm Shift: Holistic Darwinism VS the Selfish Gene

[PsychoSarah]

Yes: "dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle". Only problem is there is no tabernacle. If they ever rebuild the temple then we can give it a try to see if it works. Although if it does then you would perhaps give credit to the power of suggestion or something like that.

No, I don't think it would work if you just used the dust on the floor, since the text implies there may be other ingredients.

Just like if a doctor were to actually see a miracle they would just call it spontaneous remission.

Sometimes, we don't know why people get better. However, no one has come back from something demonstrably impossible to survive, such as the complete cessation of brain activity.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The problem with a miracle is that everything is restored to the way it should be. So you have to prove that there was a problem in the first place. A miracle restores everything to God's plan and purpose.

-_- a broken arm instantly healed through prayer seems good enough to me.

Yes and all of it is based on the skeptics or scoffers Bible.

Funny thing; believers throughout history have noticed contradictions in the bible. There are actually a couple in old versions of the bible that don't exist in most modern versions, such as the contradiction of Goliath being killed twice (edited to be his brother).

So all of it is based on how a reprobate mind functions. We can go there if you want, but up to now no one seems to want to go there.

I've talked about biblical contradictions with you before, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

You miss the point. The Bible is no different than Science.

-_- one's a physical book and the other is a standard methodology about how to learn about the world.

So how can you sleep at night based on what Science cannot disprove.

I worry a lot more about what there is evidence for, because there is reason to think those things exist. The only thing I consistently worry about that science can't disprove is the concept of an afterlife, but I worry because there isn't evidence that it exists, I want it to exist. I would be devastated if the idea of an afterlife was disproven.

WE can prove as much as Science is able to prove. So the weakness is in Science and the evidence that Science is able to produce to verify how accurate and true the Bible is. So when you ask for scientific evidence for the Bible then you have to accept the weakness of Science and what they can do.

-_- I can also use math to disprove the idea that the bible is perfect, since a lot of the contradictions and inaccuracies have to do with numbers.

 

[tas8831]

-_- a broken arm instantly healed through prayer seems good enough to me.

Funny you mention that - I read an exchange between a very religious person and a skeptic a few years ago on this very subject - the skeptic had indicated that he would accept that miracles are possible if the religious person could provide evidence for something like an an amputated limb growing back.

The religious person - who claimed to be a doctor - said that he witnessed such an event at his church, that the congregation prayed and a person's missing finger re-appeared. That this happened in front of dozens of people, and was 'verified' by the person's doctor.

When he was asked for names, dates, etc. - nope. The person whose finger reappeared did not want publicity, and all those involved honored his wishes and besides, he wrote, the x-rays had been lost....

Weird - someone sees a silhouette of Jesus on some burnt toast, and THAT miracle makes it on the news in an instant.

But a person gets prayed for and a missing finger is miraculously 'healed' before dozens of people including a doctor and.... Nope...

 

[Almost there]

Remember its a popular science book, the title is essentially metaphor.
The point is to you try to understand genecentric evolution by thinking of genes as if they were selfish entities. In this case often the best way for a gene to get the best outcome for its own replication is to cooperate with other genes. If you read 'The Selfish Gene' are large part of it is explaining exactly how 'selfish' genes would end up 'cooperating' to produce complex, inderpendent systems.
Just don't forget that genes arn't really selfish or cooperating, these are metaphors to help us humans get our heads around it.

Below is a quote from your link.

'As Dawkins observed in one of the less frequently quoted but more important passages of The Selfish Gene, the genes are not really free and independent agents: “They collaborate and interact in inextricably complex ways, both with each other and with their external environment…Building a leg is a multi-gene co-operative enterprise” (1989[1976]:37). To underscore this point, Dawkins employed a metaphor from rowing: “One oarsman on his own cannot win the Oxford and Cambridge boat race. He needs eight colleagues…Rowing the boat is a co-operative venture” (p.38). Furthermore, Dawkins noted: “One of the qualities of a good oarsman is teamwork, the ability to fit in and co-operate with the rest of the crew” (p.39)'

I really don't see where the issue is. Honest question, have you read The Selfish Gene?

I read an article about this back in the late 70's. I believe the title was "Selfish Memes, Selfish Genes".

 

[joshua 1 9]

-_- a broken arm instantly healed through prayer seems good enough to me.

That would be nice but that is not how it works. God is NOT a genie in a bottle granting you wishes. There is a reason why we have time. There is a reason why healing is a process that takes place over time.

God is NOT a figment of your imagination. He does things HIS way, not YOUR way.

 

[joshua 1 9]

unny thing; believers throughout history have noticed contradictions in the bible.

I personally have never found one. Even though I have put a lot of time and a lot of effort into trying to find a contradiction or error in the Bible.

What we need to do is look at what a paradox is. We need to understand that paradoxes are a reflection of contradictory forces inherent in human nature and human existence. The main thing to remember is they can be accounted for in a logical and consistent way.

So your claim is unsubstantiated because in my experience everything in the Bible can be accounted for in a logical and consistent way.

Perhaps the best example of that is Noah's flood. We have substantial evidence to show that Noah's flood was not what we would call a world wide flood. Even though that has long been a traditional understanding of the Bible. The question is what does the original Hebrew Language says? Can the original Hebrew support Noah's flood being what we would call a local flood today? Evolution gives us the answer to this question. We know that Noah's flood involved a bio diverse Eco system. This flood did not involve the entire bio sphere or a collection of worlds meaning a collection of Eco systems.

Everything in the Bible can be accounted for in a logical and consistent way. Even though there are many different authors from different cultures over a 1500 year period of time. Yet they are 100% consistent in every thing they say or write about.

 

[bhsmte]

I personally have never found one. Even though I have put a lot of time and a lot of effort into trying to find a contradiction or error in the Bible.

What we need to do is look at what a paradox is. We need to understand that paradoxes are a reflection of contradictory forces inherent in human nature and human existence. The main thing to remember is they can be accounted for in a logical and consistent way.

So your claim is unsubstantiated because in my experience everything in the Bible can be accounted for in a logical and consistent way.

Perhaps the best example of that is Noah's flood. We have substantial evidence to show that Noah's flood was not what we would call a world wide flood. Even though that has long been a traditional understanding of the Bible. The question is what does the original Hebrew Language says? Can the original Hebrew support Noah's flood being what we would call a local flood today? Evolution gives us the answer to this question. We know that Noah's flood involved a bio diverse Eco system. This flood did not involve the entire bio sphere or a collection of worlds meaning a collection of Eco systems.

Everything in the Bible can be accounted for in a logical and consistent way. Even though there are many different authors from different cultures over a 1500 year period of time. Yet they are 100% consistent in every thing they say or write about.

Whay you claim personally, is just that, your personal opinion.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

We are talking about "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" Written by Steve Wells. By definition a skeptic is a person that questions or doubts accepted opinions. So most any objection that anyone can produced will be found in the skeptics Bible. The Bible talks about skeptics, scoffers with a debased or a reprobate mind. The problem is not the Bible, the problem is the reprobate mind. The Bible, esp Paul talks about this quite a bit. In fact we are told that God: "God gave them up unto a reprobate mind". Isaiah 1:18 says: "come let us reason together". The cure here is reason.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Whay you claim personally, is just that, your personal opinion.

We are talking about the preponderance of the evidence. When you present zero evidence for your claim and I present overwhelming evidence for my claim then I have established a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

We are talking about the preponderance of the evidence. When you present zero evidence for your claim and I present overwhelming evidence for my claim then I have established a preponderance of the evidence.

What claim did i make?

 

[joshua 1 9]

What claim did i make?

You made the claim that the Bible is not true, yet you failed to substantiate your claim.