Supremacy challenge part 2

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, it does mean something, and it does present a true history. However, to not realize that it is a collection of very, VERY ancient writings (in regards to the Hebrew) and ancient writings (in regards to the Greek), and thus not to recognize that these writers did not account for history and science in the same way we do in modernity is to be very unfair to the biblical witness. Therefore, in many places we are constantly trying to arrive at a better understand both of what the text says and what it does not say. To treat Scripture to be something it is not nor has ever claimed itself to be (e.g., a scientific treatise or a 21st Century historical textbook) is to be hermeneutically unsound and unfair. We should, on both sides of this debate, desire fairness in these matters, no?

"fairness" in this case, would also include being able to say that the bible could be wrong about X.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you can provide me with well-researched literature explaining why the flood could never have happened, explaining and defining the reasons well (e.g., I have no idea what DNA bottlenecking is), then I'm all in!

That is quite remarkable.....

Here you are, saying that you have no idea what a DNA bottleneck is... but that didn't stop you post after post denying this evidence, calling it a "belief" and just sticking to your biblical flood story.

So much for intellectual honesty I guess.....

But no matter. Ignorance is not a problem, because it can be easily fixed. All it takes is a little bit of studying and a bit of reasoning.

I actually already explained multiple times what a DNA bottleneck is. But I'll do so again...

Individuals (not just humans, but all species) reproduce with variation. This is genetic variation. This variation is also how we can determine kinship between individuals.
For example, there will be LESS variation between you and your brother then there would be between you and some random guy in another country.

The larger the populationsize, the more variation there will be in the collective genome of that population.

If the population shrinks heavily for whatever reason, a lot of that variation is lost.
If you have a population of say 1.000.000 and some catastrophic event reduces it to a mere 5000, that's some SERIOUS loss in genetic variation.

This is when the "genetic bottleneck" is formed. We can detect that such bottlenecks occured in the past and can even put a relativly accurate estimation on it about how long ago the population size got reduced. We are even able to provide an approximation of how small the population size became during whatever event that caused that mass deaths.

As I said, these bottlenecks are already identifiable when population sizes are reduced to a couple thousand. In the flood story, population sizes are even reduced to a measly 2 to 14!!! That would constitute the most extreme genetic bottleneck known to this day!!!

But when we actually do some DNA analysis for various species.... no such bottlenecks are found.

If this flood story is true, then those bottlenecks MUST be there. If they aren't, then the story can not be correct. It just can't.

And, as we have already seen... these bottlenecks do not show up. Anywhere.
They do not exist.

Hence: story is refuted, false, debunked.

I would love to learn more.

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now that I have been familiarized with what a DNA bottleneck is, I am struggling to see how this is damning evidence against the reality of a flood.

It's quite simple. The flood would have reduced ALL populations from ALL species to an all-time low. The inevitable result of which is a genetic bottleneck in ALL species.

If those bottlenecks does not exist, then the flood story cannot have happened as written. The bottlenecks do not exist. Therefor......

In the end, it seems to me than the speculation of a DNA bottlenecking is just that: speculation.

There is no speculation. These are genetic facts.
If you kill all humans and only keep 4 caucasian europeans alive... then you have just succesfully deleted all the variation of asians, black africans, aboriginals, ........

All you will be left with is the little variation present in the 4 survivors.
Ie, a genetic bottleneck. All the other genes are gone.

All the Scripture tells us is that the flood happened. It doesn't give us any detail at all as to what happened afterward with the animals.

It doesn't have to. Animals reproduce with variation, just like they always have an always will. DNA did not work differently 4000 years ago.

First, we are not even taking into account things likes God's sovereignty in designing and sustaining life (even to the point of genetic variation).

Here we are, with the eternal excuse in defense of religious beliefs.... "with magic, all things are possible".

It might seem or sound like a good excuse to ignore the actual evidence of reality, but all you are really doing is sticking your head in the sand.

The flood account, quite frankly, is a ridiculous thing to accept per human reasoning.

Well, at least you realise that you are holding on to irrational beliefs.

However, a tenet of the Christian faith is an omnipotent God who can, has and does work miracles, and clearly from even an atheistic perspective of Scripture the flood account is meant to be seen as a miracle rather than something attained by mere human ingenuity.

So, are you saying that your God went out of his way to make everything about reality look as if it never happened?

Is your God really that deceptive? And, perhaps more importantly, what do you base that on? Because clearly, such things aren't mentioned in the story itself.

The wonderful thing about our God is that one day speculation will no longer exist.

The irony is that the only one speculating here, is YOU.

We are just pointing out the facts of reality. YOU are the one speculating that "God intervened" to make reality look as if he never intervened, for some reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not speculation. We know it happened in the Cheetah. But not in other animals (like whales and dolphins and other air breathers).

What is your explanation for it not happening?

He already gave his explanation: "magic", basically.
With that post, he made it clear that it matters not what the evidence of reality is or shows. He believes his bible and when the facts of reality disagree, reality can take a hike.

 

[Larniavc]

magic

Oh dear.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh dear.

I know, right?

Here's the relevant part of the post I'm talking about, bolding mine:

All the Scripture tells us is that the flood happened. It doesn't give us any detail at all as to what happened afterward with the animals. First, we are not even taking into account things likes God's sovereignty in designing and sustaining life (even to the point of genetic variation). Second, the point of the story is not to address every possible angle—scientific or otherwise—but to tell a story of a God who works miracles with his people.

I know you will reply that this is still impossible and could not have happened. And, if I had your world view, I would certainly agree. The flood account, quite frankly, is a ridiculous thing to accept per human reasoning. However, a tenet of the Christian faith is an omnipotent God who can, has and does work miracles, and clearly from even an atheistic perspective of Scripture the flood account is meant to be seen as a miracle rather than something attained by mere human ingenuity.

So essentially, the evidence of reality doesn't reflect the biblical flood because "miracles".

 

[KWCrazy]

Again, this is nqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqot what thermodynamics is about...

Nevertheless, my statement is true and correct.

There's plenty of empirical evidence to demonstrate that that war happened. And none of it relies on "eyewitnesses" alone.

However, if you no access to any information other than what was written, you would reject it out of hand

Thermodynamics is about workable energy and heat.
It's not about "disappearing" matter.

It does, however, account for the fact that all matter is in a constant state of degradation.

The 36 years track record, suggests that she does.

That could be duty and obligation. The rest you have to take on faith.

Your religious beliefs are unfalsifiable.

That's what religion is.

Ow, you are a creationist? A YEC?

I believe in the Bible as written and as was verified by Jesus Christ, the son of God. Jesus taught that the Scriptures were the breathed word of God and that man needed every word that proceeded from the mouth of God for sustenance.

I should report you for that incredible insult.

It was YOUR analogy, not mine.
James 2:10-11
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
The adulterer and the ax murderer share the same iniquity. Without the salvation of Jesus Christ, none of your sins are forgiven. If you committed a sin in your youth it follows you to the grave and is your barrier to salvation. Don't let the bleeding hearts who teach false doctrine deceive you. You're a sinner, lost and cursed for your transgressions. If you died today you would likely wind up in Hell whether you chose to believe it or not. This is the consequence to sin. The man who dedicates his life to charity and refuses to accept Christ is as lost as the child molester with two murders to his credit.

Atheists may have a prominent place in this forum, but they will have no place whatever in the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Again, not the point. But it's clear that you aren't interested in the actual point.

"fairness" in this case, would also include being able to say that the bible could be wrong about X.

That is quite remarkable.....

Here you are, saying that you have no idea what a DNA bottleneck is... but that didn't stop you post after post denying this evidence, calling it a "belief" and just sticking to your biblical flood story.

So much for intellectual honesty I guess.....

But no matter. Ignorance is not a problem, because it can be easily fixed. All it takes is a little bit of studying and a bit of reasoning.

I actually already explained multiple times what a DNA bottleneck is. But I'll do so again...

Individuals (not just humans, but all species) reproduce with variation. This is genetic variation. This variation is also how we can determine kinship between individuals.
For example, there will be LESS variation between you and your brother then there would be between you and some random guy in another country.

The larger the populationsize, the more variation there will be in the collective genome of that population.

If the population shrinks heavily for whatever reason, a lot of that variation is lost.
If you have a population of say 1.000.000 and some catastrophic event reduces it to a mere 5000, that's some SERIOUS loss in genetic variation.

This is when the "genetic bottleneck" is formed. We can detect that such bottlenecks occured in the past and can even put a relativly accurate estimation on it about how long ago the population size got reduced. We are even able to provide an approximation of how small the population size became during whatever event that caused that mass deaths.

As I said, these bottlenecks are already identifiable when population sizes are reduced to a couple thousand. In the flood story, population sizes are even reduced to a measly 2 to 14!!! That would constitute the most extreme genetic bottleneck known to this day!!!

But when we actually do some DNA analysis for various species.... no such bottlenecks are found.

If this flood story is true, then those bottlenecks MUST be there. If they aren't, then the story can not be correct. It just can't.

And, as we have already seen... these bottlenecks do not show up. Anywhere.
They do not exist.

Hence: story is refuted, false, debunked.




Population bottleneck - Wikipedia

It's quite simple. The flood would have reduced ALL populations from ALL species to an all-time low. The inevitable result of which is a genetic bottleneck in ALL species.

If those bottlenecks does not exist, then the flood story cannot have happened as written. The bottlenecks do not exist. Therefor......



There is no speculation. These are genetic facts.
If you kill all humans and only keep 4 caucasian europeans alive... then you have just succesfully deleted all the variation of asians, black africans, aboriginals, ........

All you will be left with is the little variation present in the 4 survivors.
Ie, a genetic bottleneck. All the other genes are gone.



It doesn't have to. Animals reproduce with variation, just like they always have an always will. DNA did not work differently 4000 years ago.



Here we are, with the eternal excuse in defense of religious beliefs.... "with magic, all things are possible".

It might seem or sound like a good excuse to ignore the actual evidence of reality, but all you are really doing is sticking your head in the sand.



Well, at least you realise that you are holding on to irrational beliefs.



So, are you saying that your God went out of his way to make everything about reality look as if it never happened?

Is your God really that deceptive? And, perhaps more importantly, what do you base that on? Because clearly, such things aren't mentioned in the story itself.



The irony is that the only one speculating here, is YOU.

We are just pointing out the facts of reality. YOU are the one speculating that "God intervened" to make reality look as if he never intervened, for some reason.

I know, right?

Here's the relevant part of the post I'm talking about, bolding mine:



So essentially, the evidence of reality doesn't reflect the biblical flood because "miracles".

I appreciate your zealous pursuit of truth, friend; I really do.

But, as I remember, all species came from, at one point, a singular organism, according to the atheistic worldview. Would that not be the severest of bottlenecks? Yet, amazingly, life "recovered" and we have not only great DNA variation, but an enormous number of entire species of living things. I cannot imagine that a flood such as the one described in Scripture, which happened we are not sure how long ago (it could have been aeons), would have created the bottleneck you describe, much less one which would be observable even today. I still am not convinced at this point by the evidence.

But, to be frank, the primary issue here is far, far upstream from where we currently are. This is a worldview clash, and those are not resolved easily, if ever. We both have faith in different authorities, and we both assert that the said object of our faith is infallibly true. Fortunately, contrary to what many think, the Christian worldview, alongside believing that all truth is God's truth (which includes science), also believes that we simply do not and cannot know everything with certainty (and this also includes science), and that we as a human race will be constantly learning new things until the end. I think for everyone an acknowledgement of fallibility is crucial.

With that in mind, I would suggest a little more tolerance on your part. Ridicule, sarcasm and superiority complexes never help these conversations, and only drive your conversation partners away.

Anyways, I will look more into the issues. Thanks for your help, friend.

God bless.

 

[Mobezom]

That bottleneck was trillions of years ago; it takes time to diversify. There has not been enough time since the supposed Flood to result in this level of diversity.

Edit: Oops, I meant billions.

 

[Speedwell]

Where did I make such a dichotomy? Can you give me a quotation? I never said that historical accounts have to be "literal" (an often used yet never defined term) to be true. For example, I am convinced that a literalistic understanding of the seven creation days is not the only possible and faithful way to understand Genesis 1. However, it seems rather difficult to read the flood account and think that the writer is trying to portray a fable of some sort. There is significant detail given, too much so for it to be a fable, in my estimation.

You assert that dichotomy in this very post. Unless the flood happened literally as written in 2304 BC it's a fable. A theologically adapted retelling of events surrounding a real flood (say, the "Black Sea" flood) is a fable, a made-up story, a lie.

I actually insisted the exact opposite at several points in this conversation. Opposition typically demands, in the same way that Fundamentalists demand, that Scripture be a science textbook, which is evidenced by the severe scientific scrutiny it often is subjected to by these groups.

We are not the ones who are insisting that the Noah story was written with such regard for scientific precision that the origin of the Asteroid Belt can be infallibly deduced from it.

But, more importantly, why this unfairness, saying that I am insisting upon things which I am not? Why this "you people" rhetoric? With whom am I being (likely unfairly) grouped? I am only "insisting" that Scripture be treated fairly, according to what the biblical writers meant, not what we assert it must mean.

Yet you (and I mean by that the entire YEC community) insist that the historical narratives were written with the emphasis on precise facticity which has only emerged in the historiography of the past couple of hundred years.

 

[TaylorSexton]

You assert that dichotomy in this very post. Unless the flood happened literally as written in 2304 BC it's a fable. A theologically adapted retelling of events surrounding a real flood (say, the "Black Sea" flood) is a fable, a made-up story, a lie.

Where in Scripture does it say 2304 BC?

We are not the ones who are insisting that the Noah story was written with such regard for scientific precision that the origin of the Asteroid Belt can be infallibly deduced from it.

When you say, "Either it conforms to our understanding of science or it is mythology," you are demanding that it be treated like a science textbook.

Yet you (and I mean by that the entire YEC community) insist that the historical narratives were written with the emphasis on precise facticity which has only emerged in the historiography of the past couple of hundred years.

Why do you assume I am YEC? It is very difficult to have a profitable conversation with someone who thinks they can size someone up by reading a few words they wrote. Please do not assume things about me. I don't get the feeling you have an interest in fairness.

 

[Speedwell]

Where in Scripture does it say 2304 BC?

The same place it "says" that the world was created at 6:00 p.m. Saturday, October 23, 4004 BC.

When you say, "Either it conforms to our understanding of science or it is mythology," you are demanding that it be treated like a science textbook.

Only when you say that it trumps any other science textbook.

Why do you assume I am YEC? It is very difficult to have a profitable conversation with someone who thinks they can size someone up by reading a few words they wrote. Please do not assume things about me. I don't get the feeling you have an interest in fairness.

It's in the Statement of Faith of that seminary you are attending, which I assume you adhere to: "As the verbally inspired Word of God, the Bible is without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the ultimate authority by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged."
If you are not a YEC then I apologize, though you do seem to be taking that side of the argument.

 

[TaylorSexton]

The same place it "says" that the world was created at 6:00 p.m. Saturday, October 23, 4004 BC.

Now you're just being childish, friend. I won't even humor you by asking where it says that in Scripture.

Only when you say that it trumps any other science textbook.

Where did I say that?

It's in the Statement of Faith of that seminary you are attending, which I assume you adhere to: "As the verbally inspired Word of God, the Bible is without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the ultimate authority by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged."

Yes, and I affirm that statement without hesitation. But, here we are back at my original point. We have to actually understand what the author meant, not what English translation mean to us, which is why Scripture should not be treated like a 21st Century science textbook, because it was not written to address science, nor was it written in the 21st Century. As an example, there are many in our spfacukty here at TEDS who affirm this statement of faith, yet do not affirm a literalistic six-day creation because they do not think 1) that is what scienctific evidence seems to indicate and 2) the language doesn't have to mean that. Therefore, there are many on this campus who are OEC, not YEC. Again, you are demanding that a literal interpretation of Scripture mean one thing. And, as is evidenced by that, interestingly and ironically, the only Fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture I am finding in this thread is being done by those who oppose Fundamentalism (again, a movement of which I am not apart).

It is becoming clear that you might not understand the reasonable, researched, conservative view of the inerrancy of Scripture, at least as deeply as you present yourself to.

 

[Speedwell]

Now you're just being childish, friend. I won't even humor you by asking where it says that in Scripture.

Ask Archbishop Ussher when you finally meet him.

And, as is evidenced by that, interestingly and ironically, the only Fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture I am finding in this thread is being done by those who oppose Fundamentalism (again, a movement of which I am not apart).

Take a closer look at KWCrazy's posts.

It is becoming clear that you might not understand the reasonable, researched, conservative view of the inerrancy of Scripture, at least as deeply as you present yourself to.

As a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] lover" (an Anglican) I understand the Fundamentalist view of scripture all too well. Your view of scripture, on the other hand, seems much closer to my own, reminds me of people like Hodge and Warfield (who I don't necessarily agree with, but who are not extremist loonies). I do apologize for tarring you with the Fundamentalist brush.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Ask Archbishop Ussher when you finally meet him.

Did he write Scripture?

Take a closer look at KWCrazy's posts.

Why am I being held responsible for others' statements?

As a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] lover" (an Anglican) I understand the Fundamentalist view of scripture all too well. Your view of scripture, on the other hand, seems much closer to my own, reminds me of people like Hodge and Warfield (who I don't necessarily agree with, but who are not extremist loonies). I do apologize for tarring you with the Fundamentalist brush.

Thank you. For the record, I do not believe you hate the Bible, deny Christ, or are a communist (I am assuming people call you that to insult you). I admire your desire to be real with the text of Scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

Did he write Scripture?

No, he deduced from Scripture, which for some is the same thing. Just like deducing the origin of the Asteroid Belt.

Why am I being held responsible for others' statements?

You're not. But you said that no one on this thread appeared to be taking a Fundamentalist view of scripture except those opposing it. I believe that KWCrazy is a Fundamentalist.

Thank you. For the record, I do not believe you hate the Bible, deny Christ, or are a communist (I am assuming people call you that to insult you). I admire your desire to be real with the text of Scripture.

The auto-sensor removed a coarse but commonly used accusation of uncritical admiration for homosexuals ending in "--lover." I don't know how it was for you in Georgia when you were an undergraduate, but I had to live in the Bible Belt for a while and things were pretty rough. I could handle myself and was spared all but hostility, but others didn't fare so well. Where I lived, for example, it was considered good sport to set dogs on JW canvassers and some were severely injured. The Sheriff, being a Fundy himself, would do nothing. JWs are a "godless cult" and don't deserve protection. Just like Anglicans.

 

[TaylorSexton]

No, he deduced from Scripture, which for some is the same thing. Just like deducing the origin of the Asteroid Belt.

Well, I can't help what he did or said. It seemed to me like you were saying that his assertions (i.e., the date of creation, which is frankly a silly fantasy) were actually found in Scripture, which, obviously, they are not. They are pure speculation, against which many warn severely.

You're not. But you said that no one on this thread appeared to be taking a Fundamentalist view of scripture except those opposing it. I believe that KWCrazy is a Fundamentalist.

Ah, I see. Regardless, I think my point still remains that the way many atheists treat Scripture (i.e., demand that it be scientifically precise) are actually playing into the hands of the Fundamentalists because they are treating Scripture in the same way, just to a different purpose and end.

The auto-sensor removed a coarse but commonly used accusation of uncritical admiration for homosexuals ending in "--lover." I don't know how it was for you in Georgia when you were an undergraduate, but I had to live in the Bible Belt for a while and things were pretty rough. I could handle myself and was spared all but hostility, but others didn't fare so well. Where I lived, for example, it was considered good sport to set dogs on JW canvassers and some were severely injured. The Sheriff, being a Fundy himself, would do nothing. JWs are a "godless cult" and don't deserve protection. Just like Anglicans.

That sickens me. I find Fundamentalist behavior in many cases to be reprehensible. I am very sorry you experienced this, friend. I am appalled, but not surprised.

 

[rjs330]

Who said it didn't happen? We're talking about the text of the story, not the event itself. We're talking about a claim about the text which allows one to infallibly conclude from it, for instance, that sliding tectonic plates reached sonic velocities and the "Fountains of the Deep" erupted with such force as to blast chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid Belt, all in exactly 2304 BC, "because it says so in the Bible," or otherwise the Bible is a lie and Jesus died for nothing.

I'm sorry if I insult your beliefs, but that scenario and the claim of literal inerrancy which backs it up is a lot of fatuous nonsense which has nothing to do with faith in Christ

Oh interesting, I guess I missed the part of the asteroid belt. I would call that a theory, because the Bible certainly doesn't claim that. You see as a literalist I believe what the Bible says. I'm consistent. If someone stated to me that the Bible says the asteroid belt was created by the explosion of tectonic plates I would ask for a biblical reference. I don't recall that passage. It's an interesting theory, but a theory none the less.

And as far as the whole Jesus died for nothing routine, I'm not sure what you mean about that. I think you should know me by now to know that I do not believe that. Let me state it again in case you or anyone else might have missed it. Jesus death and resurrection and salvation of your soul is NOT dependant on whether you believe the flood happened or God created as is written. It is only predicated on you believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and living for him.

But I do emphatically state that those that say the Bible is wrong about what it says concerning creation or the flood or any other story in the OT IS attacking the truthfulness of the Bible.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

 

[Mobezom]

I think that the Bible isn't entirely truthful, and I think that the important parts ("important" from my view) are valid while the others... maybe aren't. I don't know anything for certain, but I can live with that. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[rjs330]

It appears that you have no idea what science is and does. And since you are highly reliant on the science that you deny that makes your claim just a bit hypocritical.

Umm.. not sure what you're saying here. I'm not relying on science when it comes to what the Bible says.

Science is a great thing. The various sciences have done a lot for humanity. It has also do a lot to hurt humanity. It has been right and it has been wrong. But when science completely goes against what the Bible says then Science is wrong. Precisely because science deals with the physical world only. Whereas God deals in the impossible. With man everything is not possible. With God all things are possible.

Man's understanding is limited. God is not limited. Man's understanding is foolishness to God and Gods foolishness is wiser than man's wisdom.

God gave man a brain and man has used that intelligence to do marvelous things. Aspirin, going to the moon, penicillin, the atomic bomb have all come from scientific discoveries. So there is nothing "wrong" with science. However the interpretation of scientific discoveries, particularly when it comes to the past is deeply flawed. When it contradicts what God says then it's flat wrong.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk