Why is evolution unbelievable?

[Papias]

Resha, your post #79 is a reply to gluadys, and I've held off on mentioning this one point so as to stay out of that (apparently good) conversation.

It's been a few days, so here it is, however.

you wrote:

Yes, given the necessary conditions (limited evolution does happen - my add). Or do conditions limit the extent of what change is possible? I didn't meant to adopt a tired old argument, but the fact remains that all the evidence I've reviewed are what I would consider little changes. I've seen nothing to support the bigger claims. The bigger claims stem from extrapolations - unreasonable ones IMO.

You may not be familiar with the whole areas of evidence that support the idea of "bigger claims". There are many areas that convince practically everyone familar with the evidence that evolution is not just a species level thing, but unites all life on earth through common descent.

You can look over some of the evidence here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Specifically, evidences 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 all show that all life on earth came to be through common descent.

Additionally, many of these show large changes as you are looking for, (like, say, lizard to mouse), but don't cover the full span of uniting all life as above. These include 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and others. For instance, our GULOP gene alone shows clearly that all monkeys and apes (including humans) descended from a recent common ancestor like a monkey.

All of that is too much for this thread (even one of those is plenty for a thread on it's own), but to say that you haven't seen anything to support the bigger claims - means that you must not have been given this or similar information yet.

I hope you find it interesting.

In Christ's name-

Papias

 

[gluadys]

Some people with whom I have this discussion try to claim the Bible is not historical evidence at all. That just boggles my mind.

That would boggle my mind too. The Bible can be used to help corroborate other documents because much of it is historical.

This is not the impression I got. In fact, I inferred quite the opposite.

I don’t doubt it. Part of it is that I am distinguishing between the person and what is said about the person. I cannot corroborate the historicity of Abraham, but I have no basis to think he was not a historical individual, so I proceed on that basis unless and until I have reason to think otherwise. OTOH, I do have reason to think that the stories about him are more in the nature of legend or saga than history.

Let one example suffice: When Abraham took refuge from famine in Egypt, Sarah was taken into Pharoah's harem . The implication is that she is beautiful enough to attract the attention of those who sought out women for Pharoah. But if one looks at the stated ages, she was already 65. That just doesn’t make sense. What woman of 65 would be so beautiful and attractive as to be recruited into a harem? I think what we are seeing here is a conflict of two different story-telling themes. This instance calls for Sarah to be young, beautiful, attractive. But the story overall, also calls for Abraham and Sarah to be well beyond any thought of having children of their own, so that Isaac is clearly a miracle child.

. And so, again, it seems you are saying the Bible is no better than any other myth in that regard. I disagree.

Oh, I think the bible is certainly a better myth than many others. And that is important. People live by the mythology that tells them who they are and what they should value. The biblical myth has often be contrasted with the Babylonian myth (and its Syrian parallels). What do those myths tell us? In the first place, they present humanity as an afterthought of the creator-gods—beings not made as the world was made, but only later to be servants to the gods who were too proud and lazy to engage in manual labour. Secondly, they present conflict as being endemic to creation; the central motif of these accounts is the war against the primordial goddess of chaos. It is a theme of “redemptive violence” by which the empire of the gods is sustained.

How different the biblical myth! There is no war, no need of violence, as God creates. Even the material of which the world is made (the body of the defeated monster in the pagan myths) is declared by God to be “good”. The whole of creation is presented as God’s temple and humanity is given the role of honour as the image of God, into whose hands God gives the rights and responsiblities of a lord to manage his household and care for his world.

We are always tempted away from the biblical myth and back toward the myth of empire and redemptive violence. We see that daily in the headlines, currently in the war cry against Syria. We need the biblical myth as balance and anchor and counterweight to the false mythologies we are so prone to adopt in its place.

Based on what my church says about the canon, were we to become convinced Joseph is just a myth, or that the stories about Abraham were just myths, they would likely be removed from the canon. It doesn't mean we would burn them as heresy. Rather, they would be treated the same way we treat the Apocrypha or the Midrash - as interesting historical background and interesting stories that add some extra dimensions to our understanding of Hebrew culture ... but upon which we cannot base theology.

And I think that would be a terrible mistake. I think all of the bible is important to keep. I don’t see any reason why God would not inspire some of the biblical authors to provide us with myth as he has inspired others to provide us with history, poetry, laws, parables, prophecy and proverbs. The myths of scripture are far from being heresy. They are fundamental to our knowledge of God and of ourselves, of creation, providence and redemption. In a literary perspective myth is not equated with falsehood. It is simply another genre of literature. And as a genre of literature, it can be used by the Holy Spirit to teach what is true and important for us to know.

This also seems to have gotten confused, so let me clarify. I'm not saying the Patriarchs were perfect. It's very possible that Joshua or David thought the earth was the center of the universe - that they had mistaken understandings of physical reality. So, suppose Joshua were to say, "I think the earth is the center of the universe." The truthful way to record that in the Bible is to record exactly what he said. Record his mistakes and his sins as they actually happened.

Well, that is the most sensible thing I have heard from a person who doesn’t accept evolution. Usually I get a song and dance about how these scriptural examples of how the ancients thought about the cosmos “really mean” what we understand.

I don't believe Joshua (or any Patriarch) put words in God's mouth that are untrue. Nor do I think they recorded events that didn't happen. It may seem incredible that Jonah was swallowed by some large sea creature and survived, but God could certainly do that if he chose. If God can't do that, he's pretty weak. As such, I don't see the reason to doubt the reality of a story about a person the Bible is claiming to be real.

I think when they actually recorded history, it is probably true, or was true as they knew it. But I see nothing in the Jonah story to suggest the writer intends it to be history. Being swallowed by a whale is the least of it. I think it detracts from a very powerful moral story and insight into the love of God for all humanity to focus on whether one miracle is historical or not. That is just not the point.

Well, as I said, salvation needs to be a real thing and so Jesus and his resurrection need to be real. If the stories are just stories, then we have no history of God continually intervening in history to save his people. Jesus suddenly appeared with no prior record. If the stories aren't true, and God didn't intervene in the past, why should I believe he will intervene in the future?

No one I know contends that every story lacks historical grounding. Some are more purely history than others, but given the propensity of the biblical writers to focus on the moral meaning of events rather than the events themselves, none is simply history either. For example, take the story of the death of Ahab in 2 Chronicles 18. I would certainly agree that this is history, but the biblical writers never simply record this history, they always pass judgement on the event as expressing the favour or disapproval of God. At the other extreme, I would take most of the story of Joseph as legends about him, but that doesn’t mean there was no historical Joseph around whom these legends gathered. And that means there is probably some kernel of history wrapped up in the legend.

Now, as to whether God is continually intervening in history to save his people, that is clearly a matter of faith. I don’t expect any impartial observer would see anything in the events per se to tell whether or not God was present. An impartial observer would simply record that Abraham migrated from Haran to Canaan. Abraham, however, says he was guided to Canaan by God. There is no way to verify that objectively. But those who acknowledge Abraham as their father in faith will not doubt it. And one can continue through the patriarchs, the judges, the kings and prophets. All of Israel’s history is presented in scripture in the faith that the events which take place are signs of God’s presence to judge and to save.

The Lutheran tradition on this is quite different. Though it is not a strict rendering, we understand sola scriptura differently. We do reject the Thomism of the Scholastics and the Neo-Platonism of Augustine. It's not that there is no value in what Aquinas or Augustine did, but they did err.

The Lutheran tradtion is one I have very little knowledge of. I have always identified “sola scriptura” as a Calvinist position. Would you expand a bit on what the phrase means in a Lutheran context?

And all other religions are completely off base. Other cultures certainly have value, but their religious "truths" have no merit. I realize that offends people, but I'm not here to accommodate everyone.

Not only do I think that is harsh and untrue; I think it is unscriptural. It suggests that the witness of the Holy Spirit is limited to the channels acceptable to church leadership.



Are you familiar with the Heliand?

Never heard of it before, but it is going onto my must read list.

Yes, given the necessary conditions. Or do conditions limit the extent of what change is possible?

Not extent so much as direction. Except in very minor respects, evolution is largely unidirectional. So it cannot be reversed. When a mammal adapts to marine life, it does so as a mammal, not by reversing evolution to become a fish similar to its long ago ancestor. One way of expressing this is that no species can live outside of its own history. That is why one cannot (contrary to some claims) expect evolution to produce a crocoduck or any similar chimera. Crocodiles do not feature in the ancestry of ducks or vice versa.

I didn't meant to adopt a tired old argument, but the fact remains that all the evidence I've reviewed are what I would consider little changes. I've seen nothing to support the bigger claims. The bigger claims stem from extrapolations - unreasonable ones IMO.

That is because all evolutionary changes are little changes. The only way you get big changes is through an accumulation of little changes. And that takes time beyond the limits of a research project, even of human lifetimes, especially with larger organisms like vertebrates or trees. Divergence requires speciation (dividing a population so that gene flow between the sub-groups is reduced or eliminated). This means they will henceforth follow different evolutionary trajectories, so that populations which began as varieties of one species can, many millions of years later, be so different as to be placed in different families or even orders.

Further, the non-determinism to which I refer would apply to God as well. IOW, God wouldn't have known that humans would be the final result of the process. It seems you are taking the other position - that evolution appears non-deterministic to us, but is determined by God.

Personally, I am not particularly happy with that position, but I have seen it endorsed by some evolutionary creationists. It is definitely a possibility. But my own position is closer to that of Ken Miller who contends that the constraints on evolution are such that something like humanity (biologically, that is) would likely appear without the necessity of prior determination.

What then of the animals? Do they have souls that God is concerned with saving?

I believe God’s intent is to save the whole creation. And I don’t believe souls are separable from bodies. I don’t think a soul is something we have, but something we are. I would say the same of the body. And I think there is a reason the early church affirmed not merely resurrection, but the resurrection of the body. (Apostles’ Creed).

John Polkinghorne suggests that as this creation was made ex nihilo (from nothing) the new creation will be made ex vetere (from the old) reclaiming, redeeming and restoring all that is good of the original. A concept shared by C. S. Lewis, if you have ever read the final book of his Narnia series.

You seem unfamiliar with the confessional Lutheran tradition. This is part of the sermon almost every Sunday. Sure, some people try to keep the law, but none has. Scripture is clear on that. And it's not like some OT Jew kept the law and it became impossible when Jesus arrived. You need to read Romans and Hebrews. As is made clear, it has always been faith that justified - even with Abraham.

I am unfamiliar with Lutheran tradition, but not at all unfamiliar with that sermon, which I quite agree with. However, the fact that no one has kept the law, doesn’t mean that the law is intended to be beyond the capacity of humanity to keep. One of the implications of the Incarnation is that it provides us, in Jesus, a model of a human being who did keep the law.

A prediction gives the probabilities of what might happen in the future. Prophecy speaks of what is and what will be. It is definite (a 100% probability if you will).

I don’t think you have successfully distinguished prophecy from prediction. You are just saying that while human attempts at prediction fall short of certainty, God predictions don’t.

I think prophecy is outside the category of prediction altogether.

But I'm getting lost now. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Mine was that if God can't determine the future (i.e. can't determine what animals will result from evolution), then his prophecy devolves to prediction - He might be wrong.

But what if God never intended to predict what animals would evolve? One can’t be wrong about a prediction that was never made.

What if evolution is a way for God to explore the potential of creation rather than pre-determine it? Perhaps, rather than thinking of God as an inventor of mechanisms who has to design what will be before making it, we should think of God more as an artist whose designs are developed in the process of creating the work.

 

[frogman2x]

Resha, your post #79 is a reply to gluadys, and I've held off on mentioning this one point so as to stay out of that (apparently good) conversation.

You may not be familiar with the whole areas of evidence that support the idea of "bigger claims". There are many areas that convince practically everyone familar with the evidence that evolution is not just a species level thing, but unites all life on earth through common descent.

What biological evidence did they offer?

You can look over some of the evidence here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Specifically, evidences 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 all show that all life on earth came to be through common descent.

There is no biologial evidence for common descent. That is a convient term to give the faithful hope that evolution is true. In fact genetics refute that idea.

Additionally, many of these show large changes as you are looking for, (like, say, lizard to mouse), but don't cover the full span of uniting all life as above. These include 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and others. For instance, our GULOP gene alone shows clearly that all monkeys and apes (including humans) descended from a recent common ancestor like a monkey.

There is no biological evidence that there is a GULOP gene. That is anoher invention to give the faithful hope.

All of that is too much for this thread (even one of those is plenty for a thread on it's own), but to say that you haven't seen anything to support the bigger claims - means that you must not have been given this or similar information yet.Papias

Could it be boiled down to one biological fact that make any of it true? Unless you can, you are just blowing smoke.

kermit

 

[Resha Caner]

But I see nothing in the Jonah story to suggest the writer intends it to be history.

I'm sorry, but this appears like waffling to me. Earlier you said you would accept Biblical accounts as history unless something indicates otherwise. Here you go the other direction, saying it's not history until something indicates it is.

Now, as to whether God is continually intervening in history to save his people, that is clearly a matter of faith.

It is a matter of faith whether one accepts the examples presented, but I would disagree if you're suggesting that faith requires us to imagine interventions without any examples.

The Lutheran tradtion is one I have very little knowledge of. I have always identified “sola scriptura” as a Calvinist position. Would you expand a bit on what the phrase means in a Lutheran context?

I see the Lutheran position as a middle ground between the Orthodox and Protestant postions. On the one hand, the Orthodox insist Scripture must be accompanied by Tradition and Church, but then say nothing substantive about what Tradition and Church is, which allows them to cherry-pick the things that agree with their opinions and dismiss those things that disagree. At the other end are the Protestants who insist Scripture stands alone to the exclusion of the tradition and the church.

Lutherans believe the Church to be a very real thing with a very real role in defining the canon. So, it's not as if it couldn't change, but it is very unlikely it will. Most of the activity for setting the canon has come and gone. Throughout the OT the promise of the Christ was a future thing, and so it was to be expected that the revelation of new truth would continue. But the Christ has been revealed, and his saving work is finished (as he said), so there's no reason to think some major new truth is going to be revealed that will require an addition to the canon. As such, the role of the Church is now largely one of preaching, teaching, and counseling.

Lutherans don't believe proper understanding of Scripture is some self-evident, self-contained thing. Scripture can be misunderstood, and guidance is needed. The Spirit plays a primary role, but the presence of other spirits can and do lead people astray. As such, there is also a role for tradition, but it's not some mystical aura that surrounds an ambiguous collection of "fathers". As such, when a Lutheran says he/she is "confessional" it means we think the Book of Concord is the best exposition of Scripture. We are not claiming Concord is infallible or that it holds equal authority with Scripture. Rather, we're putting a stake in the ground and saying it is the best explanation/interpretation of Scripture that has been produced by tradition.

Not only do I think that is harsh and untrue; I think it is unscriptural. It suggests that the witness of the Holy Spirit is limited to the channels acceptable to church leadership.

As I tried to explain above, it does not mean that. The Church is not "church leadership". Lutherans do not accept a hierarchy of some sort where a Pope can sit ex cathedra and pronounce truth.

Beyond that, you'll have to give me scriptural references to support your position. What does the Bible say about other gods and other religions? It may be a harsh message that people don't want to hear, but sometimes the truth is harsh. Matt 7:23 sounds pretty harsh to me.

Never heard of it [The Heliand] before, but it is going onto my must read list.

It's an excellent example of presenting the Gospel in a specifically cultural way without pulling in false religious "truths" from that culture ... not that I would claim it is perfect.

So it [evolution] cannot be reversed.

There are papers claiming the opposite. This isn't a point I really want to argue, so the only reason I mention it is that I plan to discuss reversibility in my reply to Papias, but I want to be clear that I refer to logical reversibility, which is something entirely different than what you mean here.

I'll also touch on the whole "little" change, "big" change topic.

Personally, I am not particularly happy with that position, but I have seen it endorsed by some evolutionary creationists. It is definitely a possibility. But my own position is closer to that of Ken Miller who contends that the constraints on evolution are such that something like humanity (biologically, that is) would likely appear without the necessity of prior determination.

I don't think I understand you. What would have put those constraints on evolution? If not God, then God didn't determine humanity and my point stands. If God, then he did determine humanity and you're saying evolution is a determinism beyond our capacity to understand, which is a "goddidit" appeal (not that I'm actually against such things). So are you just splitting hairs at this point?

I don’t think you have successfully distinguished prophecy from prediction. You are just saying that while human attempts at prediction fall short of certainty, God predictions don’t.

I think prophecy is outside the category of prediction altogether.

I said more than what you took from my statements, so I don't think you understand me yet. But you've also completely lost me. I have no idea what you're trying to get at. You're telling me what prophecy isn't, but nothing about what it is.

But what if God never intended to predict what animals would evolve? One can’t be wrong about a prediction that was never made.

What if evolution is a way for God to explore the potential of creation rather than pre-determine it? Perhaps, rather than thinking of God as an inventor of mechanisms who has to design what will be before making it, we should think of God more as an artist whose designs are developed in the process of creating the work.

What if ... you're just speculating. It's not for us to say what God is and what God does. He is what he is. Granted he is infinite and there is much of Him that we don't fathom. But He tells us what we need to know.

It's not as if I'm asking a question from nowhere. I'm asking a question about Scripture.

I believe God’s intent is to save the whole creation. And I don’t believe souls are separable from bodies. I don’t think a soul is something we have, but something we are. I would say the same of the body. And I think there is a reason the early church affirmed not merely resurrection, but the resurrection of the body. (Apostles’ Creed).

You're not answering my question. You've evaded several questions along the way and I let it go because it wasn't germane. One of my favorites was your answer to my question about demons.

Regardless, this time I'm going to be more insistent. However you want to slice it, when the day comes, I will be resurrected - me - the person who here calls himself Caner. We can speculate about the nature of soul & spirit, but that is a digression to my question. It is me who will be resurrected, and it is me who, per Matthew 25, will receive either eternal life or eternal punishment. Are animals also judged in this way?

 

[Resha Caner]

You may not be familiar with the whole areas of evidence that support the idea of "bigger claims". There are many areas that convince practically everyone familar with the evidence that evolution is not just a species level thing, but unites all life on earth through common descent.

I will reply, but I hope this doesn't derail the other conversation. This reply will require bringing together facets from science, logic, mathematics, and philosophy so it could be a lengthy discussion in and of itself. However, at this point, I will try to be as brief as possible.

First of all, I'm not claiming I've seen all the evidence, but the amount of evidence is not the issue. For example, I could cite a very lengthy work on miracles that documents thousands of claimed events throughout history. Despite the number of claims, this does nothing to convince unbelievers that miracles occur. They discount each and every one for the very same reason. With that said, I do appreciate you providing the link. It had some interesting discussion.

Second, before we start, I want to put aside one of the typical replies I get: that my criteria is ridiculously and unachievably stringent. I'm not saying you have used that excuse. I just wanted to address it now to prevent a digression in that direction. My answer to that objection is that such may be the case; maybe biology can't meet my criteria. However, I wish to note 2 things. Were I to use the methods of biology to make similar extrapolations in my engineering role I would be laughed from the room. My superiors expect similarly stringent validation from me, so I don't think it unreasonable for me to expect it of others. Second, I'm not an outsider who is imposing this criteria just because I don't like the answer you're giving me. There are people within biology who have taken up this challenge - not from me specifically, but people who have realized it is an issue to address.

The one example I gave was Theobald WRT UCA. Despite his inability to design a convincing falsification experiment, I admire him for the attempt.

More relevant to the evidence you're putting forward, I've mentioned before how everything I've seen related to the larger claims is circumstantial and based on inference. In that regard, in post #46 I quoted Yonezawa on this problem. He notes how parallel evolution has caused problems with some of the conclusions made about UCA. What it comes down to is the principle that correlation is not causation. That is the challenge I have raised in the past that people call a ridiculous criteria to apply to evolution. But some are trying to address it. If you're not familiar with the idea of "causal calculus", I'll refer you to this website as a good place to start to get familiar:

If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? | DDI

I'll also note that this is a somewhat new area of investigation for me, but at this point one of the key papers WRT biology seems to come from a discussion between Walsh and Otsuka: "Why the Causal View of Fitness Survives". If Walsh wins the debate and evolution is non-causal, it leaves biology without a way to demonstrate that the correlation seen has anything to do with evolution. If Otsuka wins and causal calculus applies, at the very least it means that the causal link (as I've been saying) has not yet been established. This whole area of study is very new.

To me it seems intuitively obvious that the tree structure proposed by evolution makes it a logically irreversible process. IOW, it would be impossible to prove a causal link (i.e. that evolution caused the descent of species). However, I'll admit such has not been proven.

The challenge often arises: If not evolution, then what? The creationist "theory" (if one can call it that), is that God "made" life. IOW, it was a virtually instantaneous process that is inaccessible to science. Whether or not that is true, I want to point out something about it with respect to this discussion. Evolutionists are assuming that similarity means descent. Some of the arguments even mention how species have similarly "unused" features. That, however, is just a further assumption. People used to assume the appendix had no current function, but now that is not so certain.

Regardless, similarity is an attempt to say that correlation is causation, and that is a logical fallacy. It is easy to speculate on the alternatives. For example, people have speculated that silicon is a likely alternative to carbon for the basis of life. Suppose it is. But the amount of silicon we need in our diet is trivial. So, were we living in a silicon garden, eating those plants would be at best benign and at worst poisonous. God knows that. So, he would have created plants that could sustain us simply for that reason. It doesn't have to mean we descended from a common ancestor.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sorry, but this appears like waffling to me. Earlier you said you would accept Biblical accounts as history unless something indicates otherwise. Here you go the other direction, saying it's not history until something indicates it is.

And, in the case of this story, I do see indications that it is not intended to be history. The miracle of the whale is not one of those indications.

It is a matter of faith whether one accepts the examples presented, but I would disagree if you're suggesting that faith requires us to imagine interventions without any examples.

It is a matter of faith even if one does accept the examples, as I do. An unbeliever might accept that the people of Israel escaped the Egyptian army through the Sea of Reeds as a strong east wind was keeping the water back to walk through but still assert that the wind was not sent by God and the people not lead by God, nor the Egyptians hampered by God. That God had any hand whatsoever in the Exodus was and is the understanding of Jews/Christians/Muslims. But that is an interpretation of the events not inherent in the events themselves.

Lutherans don't believe proper understanding of Scripture is some self-evident, self-contained thing. Scripture can be misunderstood, and guidance is needed. The Spirit plays a primary role, but the presence of other spirits can and do lead people astray. As such, there is also a role for tradition, but it's not some mystical aura that surrounds an ambiguous collection of "fathers". As such, when a Lutheran says he/she is "confessional" it means we think the Book of Concord is the best exposition of Scripture. We are not claiming Concord is infallible or that it holds equal authority with Scripture. Rather, we're putting a stake in the ground and saying it is the best explanation/interpretation of Scripture that has been produced by tradition.

That is not actually far from the Reformed position, except that the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Belgic Confession or some similar document would be appealed to instead of the Book of Concord.

I certainly agree with your opening sentences. I see all too often on these forums the hubris of individuals who think they have discovered the "true" interpretation of scripture unknown to all previous generations. I understand the Reformed position as saying that tradition should not trump scripture, nor should traditions be added to the corpus of the faith that have no grounding in scripture (e.g. the concept of purgatory). But there is certainly a place for respecting traditional interpretations of scripture and doctrines which are based in and derived from scripture (e.g.the Trinity).

On that basis I reject modern concepts of the inerrancy of scripture. This was never part of traditional Christian doctrine. I will stick with the Reformed concepts of the sufficiency and infallibility of scripture on questions of faith and morals.

As I tried to explain above, it does not mean that. The Church is not "church leadership". Lutherans do not accept a hierarchy of some sort where a Pope can sit ex cathedra and pronounce truth.

Well, I am thinking of church "leadership" right down to the local pastor and deacon. The Holy Spirit is simply not obliged to work only through recognized channels of church structure at any level. The Spirit is always present everywhere to all people and peoples and all people/s are competent to hear and respond, however imperfectly.

Beyond that, you'll have to give me scriptural references to support your position. What does the Bible say about other gods and other religions? It may be a harsh message that people don't want to hear, but sometimes the truth is harsh. Matt 7:23 sounds pretty harsh to me.

You do realize that Matt 7:23 is addressed to those who profess to follow Christ? It is not about other religions at all, but about hypocrisy in the Church.

A better example of what I am speaking of is Matt. 5:43-48.

As for the Holy Spirit calling those beyond the bounds of the nation of Israel or the visible Church of Jesus Christ, did not God call Abraham out of the pagan culture of Ur? Did he not draw the kings of the east to the the cradle of the Christ-child via the star of Bethlehem? Did he not send Jonah to witness to the Ninevites? And Amos tells us that the Ethiopians and Philistines and Arameans are as dear to God as Israel and have been led by him. God accepted the devotion of Cornelius before he sent Peter to witness to him. Paul tells the people of Lystra who were treating him and Barnabas as gods come to earth, that God "has not left himself without a witness in doing good" in that he has sent rains from heaven and fruitful seasons to fill bellies with food and hearts with joy. (Acts 7) and he expands on that in his letter to the Romans where he declares those who know not God's law are still without excuse, for the creation itself witnesses to God's power and divinity.

There are papers claiming the opposite.

Depends on the scale. You may be thinking of the reversal of melanism in pepper moths or the changes in finch beaks. But these are examples in which the selection in one direction did not eliminate the alternate variation, only made it less common. When circumstances changed to favour that variation, it was still present to become more common again.

Also, in these cases, there was no speciation, so there was no impediment to the now rarer allele spreading through the population again.

When speciation has taken place, gene flow from one part of the population to another is cut off or severely restricted. Then we get a scenario where multiple changes can occur in each population that distinguish it from the other. Reversal, in this case, is much more difficult, and, of course, the more the populations differ from each other, the less the likelihood that they can remeld into one again. It takes time for lineages to completely separate, but once they have, they tend to remain separate.

This isn't a point I really want to argue, so the only reason I mention it is that I plan to discuss reversibility in my reply to Papias, but I want to be clear that I refer to logical reversibility, which is something entirely different than what you mean here.

Obviously, I am speaking pragmatically.

I don't think I understand you. What would have put those constraints on evolution?

Several things. History we have already mentioned. There is a lot of interest currently in how embryological development sets constraints on evolution. The physical structure of the molecules involved in shaping proteins is another. Some have proposed a process of "canalization" that tends to direct evolutionary change in preferred directions. You would need to query a biologist working in the field, especially in evo-devo for details. This is cutting edge research that even scientists are not clear on yet; I certainly am not.

If not God, then God didn't determine humanity and my point stands.

I don't know if constraints amount to determination. They rule out some directions which would be possible in a completely random search, but they don't necessarily reduce the remaining possibilities to one.

Also, I don't think it is a denial of God if determinism is denied. So I would not equate "God didn't determine" with "not God". God does not have to determine anything God does not choose to determine.

I said more than what you took from my statements, so I don't think you understand me yet. But you've also completely lost me. I have no idea what you're trying to get at. You're telling me what prophecy isn't, but nothing about what it is.

I like the Quaker understanding of prophecy as "speaking truth to power".

What if ... you're just speculating. It's not for us to say what God is and what God does. He is what he is. Granted he is infinite and there is much of Him that we don't fathom. But He tells us what we need to know.

Speculation can be an entry point for ferreting out unexamined assumptions. It is those assumptions that I am interested in. Why are you presenting God as one who determines all things? Why, in your view, is non-determinism an implicit rejection of God?

It's not as if I'm asking a question from nowhere. I'm asking a question about Scripture.

About Scripture or about assumptions you have made about scripture?
What is it that you think you are asking about Scripture?

You're not answering my question. You've evaded several questions along the way and I let it go because it wasn't germane. One of my favorites was your answer to my question about demons.

Again I am responding more to common assumptions embedded in the question than directly to the question. I do this because otherwise I am in the situation of the witness when asked "and when did you stop beating your wife?" Unless the prior assumption that the witness WAS beating his wife is true, the question is unanswerable as it stands.

Do animals have souls? Well do people have souls? I would say "have" is the wrong verb in either case. And that is it also the wrong verb in the case of "body". Is a soul something a body has or a body something a soul has? The assumption embedded in the question is that reality is dualistic and separable into "spiritual" and "physical" categories. I think "soul" is defined for us in Gen. 2:7 as that union of spirit and body which is a living creature.

Do animals have souls to be saved? Well, people are animals so at least for some animals the answer is "yes". But of course that is not what you meant. What you meant is more like "are people the only animals with souls to be saved?" or does salvation include more than people?

I did answer that. I think scripture is clear in several places that God's intention is to redeem/restore the whole of creation. All animals, both human and non-human and all plants and lakes and galaxies and fungi and algae down to the last quark.

Does anything in the non-human creation need to be saved from sin? No more than a very young child who is not yet capable of committing sin. Yet the young and innocent child also participates in the resurrection and is redeemed by Christ just as sinners are. The created world may not be sinful, but it suffers from sin and needs to be healed. In the original language spoken by Jesus "Your faith has saved you" also means "Your faith has healed you." Salvation and healing are one and the same thing.

 

[gluadys]

I will reply, but I hope this doesn't derail the other conversation. This reply will require bringing together facets from science, logic, mathematics, and philosophy so it could be a lengthy discussion in and of itself. However, at this point, I will try to be as brief as possible.

First of all, I'm not claiming I've seen all the evidence, but the amount of evidence is not the issue. For example, I could cite a very lengthy work on miracles that documents thousands of claimed events throughout history. Despite the number of claims, this does nothing to convince unbelievers that miracles occur. They discount each and every one for the very same reason. With that said, I do appreciate you providing the link. It had some interesting discussion.

Second, before we start, I want to put aside one of the typical replies I get: that my criteria is ridiculously and unachievably stringent. I'm not saying you have used that excuse. I just wanted to address it now to prevent a digression in that direction. My answer to that objection is that such may be the case; maybe biology can't meet my criteria. However, I wish to note 2 things. Were I to use the methods of biology to make similar extrapolations in my engineering role I would be laughed from the room. My superiors expect similarly stringent validation from me, so I don't think it unreasonable for me to expect it of others. Second, I'm not an outsider who is imposing this criteria just because I don't like the answer you're giving me. There are people within biology who have taken up this challenge - not from me specifically, but people who have realized it is an issue to address.

The one example I gave was Theobald WRT UCA. Despite his inability to design a convincing falsification experiment, I admire him for the attempt.

More relevant to the evidence you're putting forward, I've mentioned before how everything I've seen related to the larger claims is circumstantial and based on inference. In that regard, in post #46 I quoted Yonezawa on this problem. He notes how parallel evolution has caused problems with some of the conclusions made about UCA. What it comes down to is the principle that correlation is not causation. That is the challenge I have raised in the past that people call a ridiculous criteria to apply to evolution. But some are trying to address it. If you're not familiar with the idea of "causal calculus", I'll refer you to this website as a good place to start to get familiar:

If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? | DDI

I'll also note that this is a somewhat new area of investigation for me, but at this point one of the key papers WRT biology seems to come from a discussion between Walsh and Otsuka: "Why the Causal View of Fitness Survives". If Walsh wins the debate and evolution is non-causal, it leaves biology without a way to demonstrate that the correlation seen has anything to do with evolution. If Otsuka wins and causal calculus applies, at the very least it means that the causal link (as I've been saying) has not yet been established. This whole area of study is very new.

To me it seems intuitively obvious that the tree structure proposed by evolution makes it a logically irreversible process. IOW, it would be impossible to prove a causal link (i.e. that evolution caused the descent of species). However, I'll admit such has not been proven.

The challenge often arises: If not evolution, then what? The creationist "theory" (if one can call it that), is that God "made" life. IOW, it was a virtually instantaneous process that is inaccessible to science. Whether or not that is true, I want to point out something about it with respect to this discussion. Evolutionists are assuming that similarity means descent. Some of the arguments even mention how species have similarly "unused" features. That, however, is just a further assumption. People used to assume the appendix had no current function, but now that is not so certain.

Regardless, similarity is an attempt to say that correlation is causation, and that is a logical fallacy. It is easy to speculate on the alternatives. For example, people have speculated that silicon is a likely alternative to carbon for the basis of life. Suppose it is. But the amount of silicon we need in our diet is trivial. So, were we living in a silicon garden, eating those plants would be at best benign and at worst poisonous. God knows that. So, he would have created plants that could sustain us simply for that reason. It doesn't have to mean we descended from a common ancestor.

I don't intend to pre-empt Papias reply, but it occurs to me that very often people unfamiliar with evolution get the flow of the scientific logic reversed. (This is most commonly seen in labelling conclusions as assumptions.)

I see two examples in this post.

IOW, it would be impossible to prove a causal link (i.e. that evolution caused the descent of species).

To me the idea that evolution causes descent is backward about. Descent produces evolution. Whenever there is standing variation in a population, descent produces, at a minimum, a random selection of that variation for the next generation. And that is a minimal level of evolution.

Evolutionists are assuming that similarity means descent.

No, what they have concluded, from much observation, is that descent means similarity. Similarity therefore implies (but does not establish) relationship.

There are also other causes of similarity so whether descent is the most probable explanation for any similarity has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

There is no automatic assumption that similarity is always due to genetic inheritance. There is a recognition that since descent is a powerful cause of similarity, it is likely the cause of most similarities except in cases where other factors come into play.

 

[Resha Caner]

And, in the case of this story, I do see indications that it is not intended to be history.

So I've gathered, but your example makes too much of too little. I don't recall that you gave your reasons for rejecting Jonah, so I'll go back to your example of Sarah. Shall we see what 65 year old women think of your suggestion that they are unattractive? Have you seen a picture of Raquel Welch recently (and there are other examples)? Your premise reminds me of the uproar that occurred when the movie Country came out, and people objected to Jessica Lange's part because farm wives aren't supposed to be pretty. BTW, how old was the pharaoh when this happened? Well, I guess at least Abraham still found her attractive ... and that when she was 99.

Regardless, let's take your premise that there is a mistake in the text. Do you realize how many discrepancies there are in secular historical texts? Do these discrepancies automatically mean that the stories are not history? I hope not, or we might be forced to say that no history exists at all.

That is not actually far from the Reformed position, except that the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Belgic Confession or some similar document would be appealed to instead of the Book of Concord.

I won't say I can articulate the Reformed position well, but there is definitely an important difference between the Lutheran position and what you've said in this thread, about authority "down to the local pastor". As I've said, confessional Lutherans recognize the place of the Church. The Church has authority. Scripture makes it clear as it talks about the roles of elders, bishops, and preachers. It gives the Church authority over things up to and including excommunication (even if such things have their examples of abuse).

So, this thing about the Spirit being available to all people at all times (which is somewhat, but not quite true) just seems like a veiled form of saying, "No one has a right to question me and I can do whatever I want."

On that basis I reject modern concepts of the inerrancy of scripture.

I've heard this quip before, but you would have to tell me when this modern version was invented, because the idea of inerrancy is quite old. At the very least, there is Luther who said, "Everyone knows that at times they [the fathers] have erred as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred."

You do realize that Matt 7:23 is addressed to those who profess to follow Christ? It is not about other religions at all, but about hypocrisy in the Church.

I'm afraid you're wrong about that one. Just prior to that he was talking about false prophets, and I would certainly consider Mohammed a false prophet. The Koran talks about Jesus, but none of it is valid. I've looked at this - what do Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. think of Jesus? Many of them respond in the same misguided way as your Gandhi quote. That Gandhi said he likes Jesus would, I assume, mean that Gandhi thinks he knows something about Jesus. Yet Jesus' example of reaching out to the undesirables (both high & low - both leper and Pharisee) seems to have escape Gandhi because he didn't want to associate with we miserable Christians.

I've been told over and over by atheists and all kinds that if I just understood Jesus properly, I'd see what a great teacher and humanitarian he was and I would drop all this Messiah nonsense. Yes, so when judgement comes and these people say, "But Jesus, I always embraced your idea to love everyone," what will be the response?

As for the Holy Spirit calling those beyond the bounds of the nation of Israel or the visible Church of Jesus Christ, did not God call Abraham out of the pagan culture of Ur? Did he not draw the kings of the east to the the cradle of the Christ-child via the star of Bethlehem? Did he not send Jonah to witness to the Ninevites?

I don't know. Did he? Or are those just myths?

You seem to have forgotten what I said just a few posts back.

Speculation can be an entry point for ferreting out unexamined assumptions. It is those assumptions that I am interested in. Why are you presenting God as one who determines all things?

I'm not.

Why, in your view, is non-determinism an implicit rejection of God?

That which is not determined is not determined ... by anyone or anything. I don't see any wiggle room in that.

About Scripture or about assumptions you have made about scripture?
What is it that you think you are asking about Scripture?

I'm sorry you've lost track of the discussion. I had mentioned Genesis 1:25.

Again I am responding more to common assumptions embedded in the question than directly to the question. I do this because otherwise I am in the situation of the witness when asked "and when did you stop beating your wife?" Unless the prior assumption that the witness WAS beating his wife is true, the question is unanswerable as it stands.

I understood that a few posts back and relieved you of that burden. But you're sill answering questions I didn't ask, and not answering the question I did ask. I'll try again.

1. Will I be judged by God?
2. If so, what are the possible outcomes of that judgement?
3. I have a dog named Rosie. Will my dog be judged by God?
4. If so, what are the possible outcomes of that judgement?
Please use the Bible to support your answers.

 

[gluadys]

So I've gathered, but your example makes too much of too little. I don't recall that you gave your reasons for rejecting Jonah,

Please, please, please. I do not reject Jonah.

so I'll go back to your example of Sarah. Shall we see what 65 year old women think of your suggestion that they are unattractive? Have you seen a picture of Raquel Welch recently (and there are other examples)? Your premise reminds me of the uproar that occurred when the movie Country came out, and people objected to Jessica Lange's part because farm wives aren't supposed to be pretty.

And how many American (British?) actresses lived as Sarah did? How many older Bedouin women have you seen who are not wizened and wrinkled and often toothless by age 65? That would be a more realistic comparison.

Regardless, let's take your premise that there is a mistake in the text. Do you realize how many discrepancies there are in secular historical texts? Do these discrepancies automatically mean that the stories are not history? I hope not, or we might be forced to say that no history exists at all.

But I haven't disputed that the visit to Egypt or Sarah's temporary sojourn in Pharoah's harem is history.

So, this thing about the Spirit being available to all people at all times (which is somewhat, but not quite true) just seems like a veiled form of saying, "No one has a right to question me and I can do whatever I want."

Wow! How far away from what it is my intention to articulate. I am speaking of the freedom of God, not about giving licence to human beings to do whatever they want. I am glad you think it at least somewhat true.

I've heard this quip before, but you would have to tell me when this modern version was invented, because the idea of inerrancy is quite old. At the very least, there is Luther who said, "Everyone knows that at times they [the fathers] have erred as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred."

Yes, and among the opinions Luther thought were proved by scripture is that it is the sun which moves through the heavens not the earth. The scripture he cites in support of that is Joshua 10:13. I'd like to see how far some modern Christians who insist that scripture "really means" a non-geocentric system would get with Luther.

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon....This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13]that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

[Martin Luther in one of his "Table Talks" in 1539]​

The modern doctrine of inerrancy was formulated during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the early 20th century. It has been given a formal definition in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. That is what I am rejecting.

I'm afraid you're wrong about that one.

How so? This is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It is addressed to Jews, many of them presumably would-be followers of Jesus. It is about people who refer to Jesus as "Lord" and seek to show what they have done in his name.

Just prior to that he was talking about false prophets, and I would certainly consider Mohammed a false prophet. The Koran talks about Jesus, but none of it is valid. I've looked at this - what do Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. think of Jesus?

But none of these claim to be followers of Jesus. I don't see how one can be a false prophet of Christ if one does not even claim to be Christian. Jesus' words are directed to those who falsely claim to be HIS prophets.

Many of them respond in the same misguided way as your Gandhi quote. That Gandhi said he likes Jesus would, I assume, mean that Gandhi thinks he knows something about Jesus.

Well, humanly speaking, he certainly did. Like many Indians of his generation he was educated in Christian schools--those being the best in the country at the time. He probably knew the scriptures as well as you do.

Yet Jesus' example of reaching out to the undesirables (both high & low - both leper and Pharisee) seems to have escape Gandhi

Hardly. Do you really know so little of Gandhi's life and teachings? He insisted on breaking with the traditional caste system, and everyone in his ashrams was treated equally. Even high-cast Brahmins were required to take a turn cleaning the latrines (a job traditionally assigned to the "untouchables") It was Gandhi, as well who coined the term "harijan" (children of God) to refer to these on the lowest of low ranks in Hindu society.

because he didn't want to associate with we miserable Christians.

Oh, Gandhi had no objection to associating with Christians. He was explaining why he himself was not Christian. The Christians Gandhi had in mind were the masters of the British colonial empire in India and the South African whites who enforced segregation in that country. He personally experienced very bad treatment at their hands, the sort of treatment he found to be most unChristlike. And this was well before he became a resistance leader.

I've been told over and over by atheists and all kinds that if I just understood Jesus properly, I'd see what a great teacher and humanitarian he was and I would drop all this Messiah nonsense. Yes, so when judgement comes and these people say, "But Jesus, I always embraced your idea to love everyone," what will be the response?

I think they are wrong about "the Messiah nonsense" but as to what response Jesus would make---He who abides in love abides in God and God in him. By this all will know that you are my disciples, that you love one another.

Do you remember Jesus' parable of the two sons?
If Jesus will refuse to accept those who proclaim him Lord and Messiah but do not do the will of the Father, why would he not accept those who do the will of the Father whatever name they call him?

I don't know. Did he? Or are those just myths?

Hey, I take my myths seriously. I may not consider Jonah to be history, but I do consider it to be inspired and to be relevant for teaching us about God. So if the inspired author of the book of Jonah has God sending Jonah to the Ninevites, I take it that God is concerned that his message be preached to the Ninevites. Similarly with the other examples. All of them indicate a God who is not just the God of Israel, but of all peoples, no matter what their religion is. And a God who can make himself known to every people willing to hear whether or not a Christian missionary has reached them. I don't say this to put down missionary work, but as a reminder that wherever missionaries go, God is there first and has prepared a people to receive his Word.

I'm not. [presenting God as one who determines all things]

Well, that is the impression I got.

That which is not determined is not determined ... by anyone or anything. I don't see any wiggle room in that.

Granted, but what does this have to do with God and evolution? Especially as you are not attempting to present God as one who determines all things. If God is still God even when not determining all things, I am puzzled at why you associate non-determined evolution with a rejection of God.

I'm sorry you've lost track of the discussion. I had mentioned Genesis 1:25.

Thanks for the reminder. So, is this an "idiom"? Not sure if I understand how you are using that term. But my instinct is to say it is not. It is a straightforward affirmation that God created all the animals and saw that this creation was good.

I don't know how you interpret that in light of this discussion. FWIW, I don't consider it a stumbling block to accepting evolution. Maybe you do.

I understood that a few posts back and relieved you of that burden. But you're sill answering questions I didn't ask, and not answering the question I did ask. I'll try again.

1. Will I be judged by God?
2. If so, what are the possible outcomes of that judgement?
3. I have a dog named Rosie. Will my dog be judged by God?
4. If so, what are the possible outcomes of that judgement?
Please use the Bible to support your answers.

1. yes
2. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-15
3. No
4. not applicable in light of the answer to 3.

It seems I misread your concern to be about salvation rather than about judgment, though I think I did answer the concern about judgment as well, at least with reference to non-human animals.

 

[Papias]

gluadys wrote:

I don't intend to pre-empt Papias reply,

but you did! !(^!#*&!^&#^!*#^$!!

(I'm just joking)

but it occurs to me that very often people unfamiliar with evolution get the flow of the scientific logic reversed. (This is most commonly seen in labelling conclusions as assumptions.)

Yes, I agree this is common. In fact, when a creationist mentions "assumption", and I've asked what, specifically, they are referring to, they rarely reply with a real assumption.


Papias


P.S.
Resha wrote:

The Lutheran tradition on this is quite different. Though it is not a strict rendering, we understand sola scriptura differently.

Just a point of clarification - the Missouri synod and the ELCA differ on Biblical interpretation, as you have discussed some above. Specifically, the MS is (as far as I know) doctrinally required to be creationist. The ECLA on the other hand, has no "official" position, but does state that evolution is compatible with Genesis, that Genesis can be interpreted in ways to include evolution and UCA, and that many ELCA leaders and pastor support the clergy letter project and evolution weekend (sermons in support of UCA near Darwin's birthday). Most Lutherans in the US are in the ELCA. The MS accounts for a sizeable minority of around ~ 35%. http://www.elcatoday.com/elca-leade...n-not-what-god-teaches-us-about-creation.html

 

[Papias]

Hi Resha -

Before I get to what I see as the crux of our discussion, let me cover some other points in your post.


Resha wrote:

First of all, I'm not claiming I've seen all the evidence, but the amount of evidence is not the issue. For example, I could cite a very lengthy work on miracles that documents thousands of claimed events throughout history.

You made a conclusion based on the evidence you have seen. That suggests that you feel you have seen enough evidence to base a conclusion on, or that you are jumping to a conclusion without looking at sufficient evidence. If the latter, we agree you should learn more before concluding anything. If the former, then I'm suggesting you may not have a sufficient understanding of the evidence yet.

Your example of additional numbers of claims of miracles ignores that I'm tallking about the types of evidence, not the number of cases within each type.

For instance, additional written cases of claimed miracles in historical texts don't add much more weight after say, the first dozen or so. Different types of evidence (such as contemporary videos, then another type - radiographic X-rays of miracle healings through the process, then another type - Genetic data showing miraculous alterations, another type - direct observation of miracles, another type- oncologists giving case studies, etc.) would add weight, unlike additional historical text examples.

The upshot is that you seem to be discounting the agreement of many different types of evidence, on the rational that they are simply additional examples of the same type. Plus, as I'll explain more below, the evidence referenced doesn't appear to be the type you think it is anyway.

before we start, I want to put aside one of the typical replies I get: that my criteria is ridiculously and unachievably stringent.

I'm not sure what your criteria is. I couldn't get it out of your post (sorry). I would assume, that as a reasonable person, it's no more stringent in the area of biology than it is in other areas. Maybe state what that criteria is in a simply sentence and we can discuss it?

Were I to use the methods of biology to make similar extrapolations in my engineering role I would be laughed from the room.

What "extrapolations", specifically, do you mean?

There are people within biology who have taken up this challenge - not from me specifically, but people who have realized it is an issue to address.

What biologists do you mean? What do you say they are saying? What "issue" do you mean? You mentioned theobald and yonezawa, - but as we discussed on this thread, they never questioned UCA, and only pointed out that THE METHOD THEY USED was insufficient to draw conclusions from. That's not "evidence against UCA". They aren't examples that support creationism, nor do they support your statement that you have examined evidence. You mentioned Otsuka, but as discussed below, his discussion is not relevant, and not even within biology (he's a philosopher). As we've discussed, the consensus among practically all biologists is that UCA is a fact.

If you're not familiar with the idea of "causal calculus", I'll refer you to this website as a good place to start to get familiar:

If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? | DDI

Thanks for the interesting website. I looked it over. However, no one - not me, nor 29+, are saying that correlation shows causation. It sounds like you think that the evidences on 29+ are saying that correlation shows causation, but that only shows that you don't understand that evidence on 29+. I think we can both agree that correlation doesn't show causation, and so there is no need to take time to discuss that, right?

discussion between Walsh and Otsuka: "Why the Causal View of Fitness Survives". If Walsh wins the debate and evolution is non-causal, it leaves biology without a way to demonstrate that the correlation seen has anything to do with evolution. If Otsuka wins and causal calculus applies, at the very least it means that the causal link (as I've been saying) has not yet been established. This whole area of study is very new.

Two points. First, none of what you said follows from Otsuka and Walsh. They are discussion a minor point about mechanism in subpopulations, neither is questioning that fitness affects selection, or basic natural selection, nor UCA. It doesn't matter who "wins". Secondly, the very discussion itself is another example of mistaking a discussion about a minor mechanism (which this is) for a discussion of the basic reality of natural selection itself (which Otsuka and Walsh is not). If you want to understand evolution and UCA, O&W is a waste of your time, and not relevant to overall natural selection anyway.

I've mentioned before how everything I've seen related to the larger claims is circumstantial and based on inference.

If you consider the evidence outlined at 29+ for UCA to be "circumstantial and based on inference" and therefore not solid or reliable, then you'll have serious problems justifying belief in many things you accept, such as atoms, gravitational theory, germ theory, the existence of the US Civil War, and so on.

Some of the arguments even mention how species have similarly "unused" features. That, however, is just a further assumption. People used to assume the appendix had no current function, but now that is not so certain.

That repeats the creationism misrepsentation of "vestigiality". If you'd like to discuss vestigiality, please first understand what it is (a feature with evidence of a different former use), and what it is not (necessarily completely useless).CB360: Function of vestigial organs. Nonetheless, there are plenty of examples of non or suboptimal usefulness, and the vestigiality (not "uselessness") of the appendix is as clear today as it always has been.

OK, so back to the crux of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Papias

You may not be familiar with the whole areas of evidence that support the idea of "bigger claims". There are many areas that convince practically everyone familar with the evidence that evolution is not just a species level thing, but unites all life on earth through common descent.

​

Evolutionists are assuming that similarity means descent. ......

For example, people have speculated that silicon is a likely alternative to carbon for the basis of life. Suppose it is. But the amount of silicon we need in our diet is trivial. So, were we living in a silicon garden, eating those plants would be at best benign and at worst poisonous. God knows that. So, he would have created plants that could sustain us simply for that reason. It doesn't have to mean we descended from a common ancestor.

No one is assuming or even stating that simple similarity means descent. Perusal of the evidences given show that there is no assumption that similarity automatically means descent, and the points generally are not based just on simple similarity.

For instance, 1.2 points out that life shows a massively nested hierarchy, without exception (even when design would suggest a deviation from a nested hierarch would have been a much better design). The only process that forms a nested hierarchy is descent with modification, design breaks a nested hierarchy (unless God was intentionally deceptive).

Another example where "similarity" is an oversimplication at best, and downright wrong in most descriptions, is the fact that many lines of evidence all give the same family tree of descent (1.3). That include comparative anatomy, the study of virus carcasses in the genome, alu sequences, and others that have zero "design" needs. For that to arise by chance is very unlikely, and to arise by design again gives an intentionally deceptive God (unless UCA is true, of course).

The others in my list show the same thing, such as transposons (4.3) and the rest - that it's not just "similarity", but rather the careful consideration of alternative ideas (including design), which show that UCA is a fact.

Please, take the time to go through them, especially the falsification section - which shows that situations like your "silicon" example don't hold up, because they would render the hypothesis unfalsifiable, and hence useless for testing the idea of UCA.

The bottom line is that you appear to be rejecting UCA based on the strawmen, misrepresented minor discussions (like Theobald, Otsuka, etc), and repeated misconceptions from the creationist camp, not based on an actual understanding of the basic evidence which convinces practically all biologists, including millions of Christians.

Papias

P.S. - I probably won't be able to respond until next week, so take your time learning and thinking for your response. no rush.

 

[Resha Caner]

You need to be more careful with your wording. Just in this post you said both "I do not reject Jonah" and "I may not consider Jonah to be history".

I understand the fence you're trying to sit on, but I find it pretty meaningless. It comes across as similar to believing in the Loch Ness Monster while agreeing that all the photos have been faked and all the eyewitnesses are either lying or deceived.

You're saying the person might have been real, but the stories are most likely myth ... and I chose that phrasing purposefully. You're not saying the people are real, but that they might be, and not that the stories are myth but that they likely are.

Part of it is that I am distinguishing between the person and what is said about the person. I cannot corroborate the historicity of Abraham, but I have no basis to think he was not a historical individual, so I proceed on that basis unless and until I have reason to think otherwise. OTOH, I do have reason to think that the stories about him are more in the nature of legend or saga than history.

The above were your words that preceded the example of Sarah. As such, all I can conclude is that you refuse to take a position. You won't support something as history, but neither will you dispute it. You're lukewarm.

And how many American (British?) actresses lived as Sarah did? How many older Bedouin women have you seen who are not wizened and wrinkled and often toothless by age 65? That would be a more realistic comparison.

So you're going with the "common woman" argument here - there was nothing unusual about Sarah.

Yes, and among the opinions Luther thought were proved by scripture is that it is the sun which moves through the heavens not the earth. The scripture he cites in support of that is Joshua 10:13. I'd like to see how far some modern Christians who insist that scripture "really means" a non-geocentric system would get with Luther.

This is a red herring. Where did I ever say all of Luther's views were perfect? My only point is that the idea of inerrancy is not new.

The modern doctrine of inerrancy was formulated during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the early 20th century. It has been given a formal definition in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. That is what I am rejecting.

I am unfamiliar with that document. I'll have to read it. But for the purposes of this discussion, do you see me promoting that version of inerrancy? If so, how?

I must also add that this whole "inerrancy is new" thing is another common logical fallacy. There is something in business called a Kano analysis, whereby customers often don't express ideas that they consider to be self-evident. A Kano analysis allows one to draw these things out. For example, people don't state that when they buy a car they expect it to have tires, but they'll be pretty upset if you deliver a car without them. Many of these arguments depend upon an assumption that failing to express what was considered self-evident means the idea didn't exist. While a fallacy, it also makes it hard for me to establish that it has long been a part of Church history. Many of the issues that came up at the Councils were of this nature. Someone challenged an idea that had previously been considered self-evident. Unfortunately that means the earliest documentation we have of Church positions on these ideas is the proceedings of the councils.

How so? This is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It is addressed to Jews, many of them presumably would-be followers of Jesus. It is about people who refer to Jesus as "Lord" and seek to show what they have done in his name.

This is all pretty weak. So when Jesus was preaching to Jews, the things he said only applied to Jews (or to people who already followed him)? How many times did he speak with non-Jews? Not many that I'm aware of. This seems to cut the other way from the long list of reasons you gave me explaining why God reaches out to non-Christians ... which, BTW, I've agreed with several times. It's not that God doesn't reach out. It's that when people reject that action (i.e. take other paths, follow other religions) God doesn't just shrug and say it's OK.

And, as far as your examples go, if God didn't actually send Jonah to Nineveh, then the story is an untruth. It means there was a real, historical person who didn't go to Nineveh. As I've said, I'm not interested in an unnamed author's opinion of what God thinks of the people of Nineveh (because God wouldn't have told this unnamed author about something he didn't do). I'm not interested in appropriating a real person to get people's attention. I want to hear what God actually said about the people of Nineveh.

Well, humanly speaking, he certainly did. Like many Indians of his generation he was educated in Christian schools--those being the best in the country at the time. He probably knew the scriptures as well as you do.

And? Does our knowledge gain us heaven?

I don't understand what you're after here. My point was that Gandhi thought he knew Jesus. I would bet he would even say he followed Jesus' teachings (in that he thought Jesus' teachings weren't different than what he was trying to do). I know many Hindus personally, and this is exactly what they say, and the example of Gandhi has been used many times.

So, in spite of Gandhi's humanitarian accomplishments (which, if you've actually studied Gandhi as much as you say, you will realize his nationalistic purposes behind much of what he did) ... in spite of that, what legacy did he leave with his fellow Hindus? That they should throw off all things British (Christianity being one of those things) and embrace all things Indian (Hinduism being one of those things, actually what is known as "popular" Hinduism, which is not something he began but something he adopted that was already fairly well established).

So where is India now? It seems the poor will always be with us. And what in Gandhi's legacy is leading India to Christ?

Granted, but what does this have to do with God and evolution?

The process, as evolutionists currently present it, is undetermined. If God determined certain animals, it then means he intervened in the process as it is currently understood.

1. yes
2. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-15
3. No
4. not applicable in light of the answer to 3.

It seems I misread your concern to be about salvation rather than about judgment, though I think I did answer the concern about judgment as well, at least with reference to non-human animals.

Maybe we'll get there, maybe we won't. I had to dig down to this level to get us on common ground. An interesting choice of passage BTW. How does that fit with Matthew 25?

But that question is a digression from where I was going. So, I will be judged but my dog won't. Next, then:

1. Will I be resurrected after death for this judgement and what follows?
2. Will my dog remain dead, or will she be resurrected and not judged - not passed through the fire mentioned in 1 Corinthians?

 

[Resha Caner]

Just a point of clarification - the Missouri synod and the ELCA differ on Biblical interpretation, as you have discussed some above.

Sure, but we're right and they're wrong.

I'm well aware of the history. In fact, I'm trying to talk Missouri State into letting me make that the focus of my master's program.

Joking aside, the ELCA cannot in good conscience call themselves Confessional anymore. I can't see why they even bother to retain the name of Lutheran other than for sentimental reasons. They've been in discussions with the Episcopalians (I believe) on moving toward union.

What is now called the Missouri Synod used to be the largest Lutheran church in the U.S. - and 2nd only to the Catholics IIRC. Then came what is called the "Seminex" incident in the 1970s. The result is that what became the ELCA left us, not the other way round. We retained all the original seminaries, etc.

Anyway, I wouldn't say we are "doctinally required" to be creationist ... depending on what you mean by that. Not that I like it, but there are plenty of LCMS who think evolution is correct. Evolution is not a "salvation" issue. It's viewed much like the fact that choosing to be Democrat or Republican is not a salvation issue. The Democratic Party may support abortion and homosexuality while we preach they are sins, but we don't require people to leave that party. So, we say that Genesis is a true account of creation, but in terms of doctrine that's about as far as it goes.

 

[Resha Caner]

You made a conclusion based on the evidence you have seen. That suggests that you feel you have seen enough evidence to base a conclusion on, or that you are jumping to a conclusion without looking at sufficient evidence. If the latter, we agree you should learn more before concluding anything. If the former, then I'm suggesting you may not have a sufficient understanding of the evidence yet.

I'm not sure whether to take this as an insult or a compliment. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and might I likewise suggest that you have not yet grasped the point of my reply.

I'm going to concede something to you ... and maybe add a bit of explanation. I admit that my vocabulary is sometimes insufficient for this conversation. As such, I am very likely giving impressions that don't properly represent my position. When I said I had not seen all the evidence, I would challenge that you haven't either. As an amateur, what you're really seeing is summary information - information prepared by someone who has already made their conclusion. This has been discussed by philosophers of science in how it misleads the lay public with regard to the true nature of science. No one means to be misleading. I'm sure biologists are being forthright, but it's the nature of the business. You don't see the swamp they walked through in order to arrive at their conclusion, and so an impression is given that makes science artificially appear clean and straightforward.

In that regard, I treat biology no differently than any other science (which is something you asked about). Am I being unfairly harsh with biology? I don't think so. If someone can point out where, I will address that, but I've grilled physicists on quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) with equal skepticism. And, I remain unconvinced on several points about QM and GR. As such, people will label me "anti-science", which is completely untrue. Science is integral to the job I do every day. Science pays my bills. I see such accusations as a bit of an ad-hominem simply because I don't agree with everything contemporary science concludes.

Rather, what I will say, is that people in this forum generally seem to misunderstand instrumentalism. IMO science is a model (an imperfect instrument), and as long as it has pragmatic value, as long as it is the best we know, I have no problem with using it. I just don't believe those models represent some kind of higher metaphysical "truth". So, while physics claims every electron is exactly identical, and while the uncertainty principle makes that the most logical model to use, it has in no way been established that every electron actually is identical ... that the model we call "electron" has captured the reality of the phenomena it models.

So, the crux of what I'm driving at here is the models biology uses. In that regard I feel highly qualified. As an example, I am a mechanical engineer. A fundamental equation of Newtonian mechanics (though I'm giving an over-simplified form for this discussion) is that p = mv (momentum = mass times velocity). Electrical engineers have a similar equation: V = IR (voltage = current times resistance - again somewhat over-simplified). What engineers then do, is to make mechanical - electrical analogies. There are various versions of these analogies, but in this case we're saying momentum is analogous to voltage. So, as a good mechanical engineer with a deep grasp of Newtonian mechanics, I can now say, "Oh, I get it. I know exactly what the implications of your model are."

So I can then turn to the biologist and ask, "Where is your model?" For discussions such as these, the model is typically a statistical (i.e. empirical) one, which is a weaker model than what I described above. But, I know statistics. I can say, "Ah, OK. I get what you're doing," even though I don't know all the in's and out's of biochemistry.

Your example of additional numbers of claims of miracles ignores that I'm tallking about the types of evidence, not the number of cases within each type.

Your link specifically excluded the "mechanisms" from their argument and is looking more to the empirical models of biology. So I don't think I'm overlooking any "types" of evidence. I understand the approach.

The upshot is that you seem to be discounting the agreement of many different types of evidence, on the rational that they are simply additional examples of the same type. Plus, as I'll explain more below, the evidence referenced doesn't appear to be the type you think it is anyway.

I am taking the information you provided with all sincerity. I have read more of it since my last post, and I will try to continue reading it as the weekend goes on. I need to make clear that my objections to evolution do not mean the court is closed. As people bring me what they think is convincing evidence, I will look at it. It's just that one gets a bit jaded over time. I've done this so many times that I'm getting skeptical that anyone is really going to come up with something new.

And I appreciate that the people who wrote the information in your link are sincere. They have obviously heard many of the objections. But, try as I might, I laughed at some of what they said. They poisoned the well by declaring that their evidence does not constitute a circular argument, and then, as far as I can tell, launched into a circular argument.

So, this is where I do my best to judge your data fairly. I'm reading through this link trying to convince myself that I'm wrong and this is not a circular argument - that I'm just missing something.

What "extrapolations", specifically, do you mean?

OK. I must first ask if you are familiar with an inductive argument.

What biologists do you mean? What do you say they are saying? What "issue" do you mean? You mentioned theobald and yonezawa, - but as we discussed on this thread, they never questioned UCA, and only pointed out that THE METHOD THEY USED was insufficient to draw conclusions from. That's not "evidence against UCA". They aren't examples that support creationism, nor do they support your statement that you have examined evidence. You mentioned Otsuka, but as discussed below, his discussion is not relevant, and not even within biology (he's a philosopher). As we've discussed, the consensus among practically all biologists is that UCA is a fact.

First, Otsuka has a degree in biology in addition to his philosophy of science degree, so I think he's qualified. Second, I never said this is evidence against UCA. You keep attributing conclusions to me that I'm not making. Third, I was very open that applying causal calculus to biology is new to me. I don't yet know the full extent to which this has been tried. It seems new, and so far this work seems to be leading the pack. Just as it was encouraging to see what Theobald attempted, I find this attempt encouraging. It has very broad ramifications.

As an analogy, when the Wright Brothers built their first wind tunnel to test wing shapes, that had huge and encouraging ramifications for flight. To have someone come along and say, "But they didn't address jet engines, so I don't see how this applies to modern aviation," misses the point.

While encouraging, it also carries a second message. At the time the Wright Brothers built their wind tunnel, they didn't know how to accomplish powered flight. Likewise, while encouraging, this indicates to me that biologists are just now realizing that they haven't really established the causal links they might have thought they did. I'm sure they remain convinced of UCA. It's just that they have no causal argument to make within the modelling framework that I would put forth as the more rigorous standard.

As such, at this point, the argument still seems to me to claim correlation is causation. But I will keep reading and try to find the place that shows that is not the case.

If you consider the evidence outlined at 29+ for UCA to be "circumstantial and based on inference" and therefore not solid or reliable, then you'll have serious problems justifying belief in many things you accept, such as atoms, gravitational theory, germ theory, the existence of the US Civil War, and so on.

This is where we seem to completely miss each other. Of course all the links between different species are there. I have no problem with all the phylogenic trees biologists are constructing - with germ theory, etc. It's the conclusion of what caused all this for which I remain unconvinced. And, as an instrumentalist, I don't really care. Medicine will function just fine without identifying LUCA.

Which is the point you seemed to miss with my silicon example. I don't buy the nested hierarchy and vestigial arguments. Are you saying you know God's design intent? That seems very presumptuous. Are you saying the fallen world in which we live couldn't cause "a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms"? That there is no known mechanism that would cause this to happen independently of where the structure came from?

I just can't conceive an argument whereby the links between species could not have occurred simply because God's original design was for life to be compatible with life.

But I will keep reading.

 

[gluadys]

You need to be more careful with your wording. Just in this post you said both "I do not reject Jonah" and "I may not consider Jonah to be history".

My wording in this case says exactly what I want to say. I realize that you probably see these statements as mutually contradictory. But as I see it, they are not.

And that is where we need to get into what we are assuming as a criterion of "true" or "worthy of acceptance".

You have said several times that for a story like that of Jonah to be meaningful to you, it has to be true. And I think what you mean is that it has to be about a real, historical individual and the real historical events that he was involved in. IOW, one of your basic criteria of "true" is "historical" and you do not see anything non-historical as being "true".

I use a different frame of reference when referring to something as "true". What is important to me is what teaching, what insight about God, human nature, or how we should live is being presented. If that has the ring of truth, it doesn't matter to me if the teaching is conveyed through history or fiction. It is still true.

Especially in oral cultures, story telling was and is a primary educational medium. It is how the beliefs, values (and yes, sometimes history) of the people is preserved and passed on generation to generation. And what is important is not so much the plot (events) of the story, but the meaning of the story, the lesson to be taken from it. Sometimes the issue of historicity is just not relevant. Even in modern form, this is true. No historian can present event after event after event; there is always a winnowing, a selection of events to include. And the events the historian chooses to include in any history are those he/she deems to be meaningful in understanding the present and making decisions about future directions.

The above were your words that preceded the example of Sarah. As such, all I can conclude is that you refuse to take a position. You won't support something as history, but neither will you dispute it. You're lukewarm.

Do you mean as knowledge or as belief?

As knowledge, the only thing that can support something as history is corroboration from independent sources. On that basis we have no firm knowledge about the historical existence of over 95% of persons named in the scriptures, including Jesus of Nazareth.

Since we don't have the necessary independent corroboration, we can only form an opinion based on an assessment of probabilities buttressed by faith.

On that basis, I believe that Abraham and Sarah were actual historical individuals. Call that lukewarm if you like, but you are making the same assessment on the same basis.

So you're going with the "common woman" argument here - there was nothing unusual about Sarah.

None is mentioned in scripture which is our only source of information. I try not to invent scenarios that are not supported by the text.

I am unfamiliar with that document. I'll have to read it. But for the purposes of this discussion, do you see me promoting that version of inerrancy? If so, how?

You can check it out here. You will have to tell me if it represents your position fairly and what differences, if any, you have with it.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

I must also add that this whole "inerrancy is new" thing is another common logical fallacy. There is something in business called a Kano analysis, whereby customers often don't express ideas that they consider to be self-evident. A Kano analysis allows one to draw these things out. For example, people don't state that when they buy a car they expect it to have tires, but they'll be pretty upset if you deliver a car without them.

I hadn't heard that term before, but I do remember my astonishment the first time I needed to purchase a bed. It seems that in the furniture business "bed" does not include a mattress and springs.

Many of these arguments depend upon an assumption that failing to express what was considered self-evident means the idea didn't exist. While a fallacy, it also makes it hard for me to establish that it has long been a part of Church history. Many of the issues that came up at the Councils were of this nature. Someone challenged an idea that had previously been considered self-evident. Unfortunately that means the earliest documentation we have of Church positions on these ideas is the proceedings of the councils.

Good point, and very true. When everyone is making the same basic assumptions, there is no need to debate it in council. So, for example, there was no debate about the central position of the earth in the cosmos or that the heavenly bodies really moved through the sky around it until that idea was effectively challenged by Copernicus and Galileo. As long as it was taken for granted that slavery was a normal societal institution, there were no official positions about it pro or con. Today, we have all pretty much agreed to take a position that is at odds with what the early or medieval theologians would have taken for granted.

I will grant that inerrancy in some sense was taken for granted. One will find nothing like the Chicago Statement in either early or Reformation era documents--not because the idea of inerrancy was either rejected or never thought of, but because it wasn't a matter of debate. Today it is.

And I think that is not so much a debate over the trustworthiness of scripture per se, but over how those who are affirming inerrancy are using it. Had something like the Chicago Statement been a doctrinal norm in the 16th century, the debate over heliocentrism would likely have been much more bitter, since there would be those who, in the name of biblical inerrancy, would affirm that no matter how much evidence there is in favour of the scientific position, the word of scripture, as inerrant (and literal in intent) must be believed instead. Instead, the 16th century experience resolved itself in favour of evidence and re-interpretation of the relevant scriptures. Similarly, the 19th century debate on slavery resolved itself in favour of general principles of love and justice over a concerted effort to uphold a literal and legalistic interpretation of scripture.

This sort of resolution to modern debates on scripture and science are precluded by Article XII of the Chicago Statement. And on that basis, I reject this understanding of "inerrancy". I fully believe the question of evolution can be and should be resolved in the same way as the issue of heliocentrism was. i.e. in full acceptance of the scientific evidence and without undermining the truthfulness or authority of scripture.

This is all pretty weak. So when Jesus was preaching to Jews, the things he said only applied to Jews (or to people who already followed him)?

Yes, to people who followed or claimed to follow him. To those "who call me 'Lord' " Naturally, today, that includes a far wider circle than Jews.

What it does not include are those (including some in his immediate audience) who do not follow/claim to follow him, who do not acknowledge him as "Lord". Hence it cannot apply to people of other faiths.

It's not that God doesn't reach out. It's that when people reject that action (i.e. take other paths, follow other religions) God doesn't just shrug and say it's OK.

Of course, he doesn't. But the fact is that in many instances, people of other faiths don't reject the call of God. There is much that is found in other faiths that we agree with, and why should we not acknowledge that as responsiveness to God's witness. No major religion considers it right or just to murder, to steal, to commit adultery, to covet, to be disrespectful to one's parents and elders, to be dishonest. Virtually all major religions hold up a life of simplicity as more worthy of emulation than a life of greed for material gain, and commend charity and justice for the poor and vulnerable. And these are long-standing values in places that didn't hear from Christian missionaries until less than 300 years ago. I think we need to respect that and not simply write off whole peoples as if they know nothing of God.

As I've said, I'm not interested in an unnamed author's opinion of what God thinks of the people of Nineveh

But it is not just an unnamed author's opinion. It is scripture, which means it is given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. (Interestingly, Paul does not say that inspiration is a guarantee of historicity.) Therefore, whether it is fact or fiction, it needs to be taken seriously by any person interested in what scripture has to teach about the mind and will of God.

(because God wouldn't have told this unnamed author about something he didn't do).

You seem to be asserting that God never tells stories. Yet Jesus tells us he does only what he sees the Father doing, and Jesus tells stories.

I'm not interested in appropriating a real person to get people's attention.

That's fine for you. But it was a common and accepted practice in biblical times. It was not considered deceptive, but rather complimentary and as an extension of the teaching of the the one so named.

I want to hear what God actually said about the people of Nineveh.

What God actually said was "And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 people who do not know their right hand from their left and many animals also?"

And? Does our knowledge gain us heaven?

An irrelevant question in the context.

I don't understand what you're after here. My point was that Gandhi thought he knew Jesus. I would bet he would even say he followed Jesus' teachings (in that he thought Jesus' teachings weren't different than what he was trying to do). I know many Hindus personally, and this is exactly what they say, and the example of Gandhi has been used many times.

And they are right.

So, in spite of Gandhi's humanitarian accomplishments (which, if you've actually studied Gandhi as much as you say, you will realize his nationalistic purposes behind much of what he did) ...

Well, Gandhi's nationalistic purposes were humanitarian. He was concerned for the welfare of his people. And let's not forget that those who were oppressing his people self-identified as Christian. Both in India and South Africa. So, is he not right in saying the Christians he encountered, who met him with racism, violence, disrespect, etc. were very unlike Christ?

in spite of that, what legacy did he leave with his fellow Hindus? That they should throw off all things British (Christianity being one of those things) and embrace all things Indian (Hinduism being one of those things, actually what is known as "popular" Hinduism, which is not something he began but something he adopted that was already fairly well established).

He left a legacy which inspires, not only Hindus but many others including Christians.

So where is India now? It seems the poor will always be with us.

Absolutely. If Christian peoples have not lived up to the example of Christ, no more have Hindus lived up to the example of Gandhi. Would you really expect anything different from human nature?

And what in Gandhi's legacy is leading India to Christ?

LOL. It was not GAndhi's intention to lead anyone to Christ. Although we should add that it was not his intention to lead anyone away from Christ either. He had the attitude, expressed by a Hindu teacher of my acquaintance: he saw his role as a teacher not to make good Hindus of his Christian or Jewish or Muslim students, but to make them better Christians, Jews or Muslims.

The process, as evolutionists currently present it, is undetermined. If God determined certain animals, it then means he intervened in the process as it is currently understood.

Right. What we don't know is whether God determined any animals.

Maybe we'll get there, maybe we won't. I had to dig down to this level to get us on common ground. An interesting choice of passage BTW. How does that fit with Matthew 25?

As apples and oranges. Matthew 25 distinguishes those who are entering the kingdom of heaven from those who are excluded. The Corinthians passage is about those who are already Christ's. Since you were speaking of yourself personally, it seemed the more appropriate reference.

1. Will I be resurrected after death for this judgement and what follows?

You pass into the kingdom of heaven for eternity with such deeds of merit that survive the judgment.

2. Will my dog remain dead, or will she be resurrected and not judged - not passed through the fire mentioned in 1 Corinthians?

That is a bit more speculative. That animals and trees and other aspects of nature are part of the new creation, I take as a given. However, scripture says nothing of the mode of salvation of non-human creatures. Will there be ants in the new creation? Yes. Will this ant I just stepped on be there? Some people feel that species rather than individual critters are what will be found in the restored paradise depicted by Isaiah. On that basis, your dog in particular might not be resurrected, even though there will be dogs in heaven.

Then there are those who say "all dogs go to heaven" so if they are right, she will be.

There is also an intermediate position that distinguishes between animals (and plants?) in general and those, such as pets, where a bond has been formed between a particular person and a particular animal. Some think pets, in particular, will be individually resurrected and reunited with the humans who loved them in this life.

Since all of this is pure speculation, I see no need to state a preferred option.

 

[McMatt]

Do you even know what a dog is? We bred wolves into poodles in just a few thousands years...

There can be no biological change from one species to another. For a species to develop a charcteistic that would make it a new species one of its parents must have had the gene for that characteristic. Werer did the doglike animal get the gene for fins, a blowhole and a flapper.?

What is harder to explain is how did the first life form(and that is only a guess and not a scienific one) that did not have bones, did not need bones and did not have a gene for bones, ever produce a kid with bones.

kermit

Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whales actually did grow fins and blowholes. How else do you think a mammal can survive under water

 

[Resha Caner]

You have said several times that for a story like that of Jonah to be meaningful to you, it has to be true. And I think what you mean is that it has to be about a real, historical individual and the real historical events that he was involved in. IOW, one of your basic criteria of "true" is "historical" and you do not see anything non-historical as being "true".

No, that's not what I mean. I thought I had explained this, but I'm sorry it hasn't come through.

If a story is fictional, then it's purpose is to illustrate a point. It is true if the illustrated point is true. The parable of the prodigal son is meant to illustrate (among other things) God's forgiveness. It's true whether such an event occurred in history or not. The story would still be true even if it were told about unicorns and talking strawberries ... though I have always found it interesting that Biblical stories rarely engage such devices, which is a stark contrast to the myths of other cultures.

Now, if someone were to modify the story such that the son died in that foreign country - never returned and never repented - and yet the father still forgave him, the story would be false. God doesn't forgive the hardened heart.

Again, if a story is told about a barrel maker measuring a circle, then it is true if the mathematics of the circle are given correctly. If the story involves physical events, the physics should be correct ... though I already mentioned idioms such as "sunrise".

Finally, if a story is told about a historical person, it is true if the event is historical ... foibles and all. So, if David believed the earth to be the center of the universe and he said it, it should be so recorded. The fact is, we don't know where the center is, or if one even exists. Maybe the earth is the center, maybe it's not. Therefore, for us or David to put words in God's mouth would be an untruth. If it is recorded in the Bible as, "God said," then I believe God said it.

We have focused in on the historical accounts in the Bible, and maybe that is why you conclude what you did. To me it seems you are saying that the history is irrelevant. Whether or not the events actually occurred is secondary to the point of the story. As such, you go no further (or not much farther) than a historian would in what you will say about the historicity of the Bible.

The history is important to me. It is God showing his faithfulness. He does more than talk - more than tell stories. He acts. If God has acted in the past, why would he not tell us about it? And if God tells us about a past historical event, he will not tell a falsehood. As soon as we start to think people have clouded those past events with things that may or may not have happened, we concede that God cannot overcome the imperfections of human nature and we no longer have evidence of his faithfulness.

That's fine for you. But it was a common and accepted practice in biblical times. It was not considered deceptive, but rather complimentary and as an extension of the teaching of the the one so named.

I think you're making too much of this. Can you reference a study on this practice? It's not one of those "they did it back then but we don't" kind of things. The "appeal to authority" fallacy is still quite common today. What's interesting is that you've wrapped an appeal to authority inside an appeal to common practice here. So, all I'll say is that I don't care what common practice was at the time. God is not bound by common practice and so would not have allowed such to lead him into an untruth.

What God actually said was "And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 people who do not know their right hand from their left and many animals also?"

He actually said that? To Jonah? How did you separate this from the myth?

It was not GAndhi's intention to lead anyone to Christ.

So it seems to me as well. Sad that.

Right. What we don't know is whether God determined any animals.

I don't see how you get that from the verse. When it says God made the animals it means he didn't make them? That's an odd interpretation. No, my point was that if God made the animals, he determined them. That means the process was determined, which means he didn't use the undetermined process put forth by evolutionists, hence it was not evolution.

As apples and oranges. Matthew 25 distinguishes those who are entering the kingdom of heaven from those who are excluded. The Corinthians passage is about those who are already Christ's. Since you were speaking of yourself personally, it seemed the more appropriate reference.

OK. I'll accept that.

Then there are those who say "all dogs go to heaven" so if they are right, she will be. ...

Since all of this is pure speculation, I see no need to state a preferred option.

People say a lot of things. I'm more interested in a Scriptural position than a speculative one. But I can see how the way you interpret the Bible could lead you to this conclusion. Based on the way you've interpreted Gen 1:25, maybe 1:26 would not lead you to the conclusion that the creation of people was something unique - something apart from the creation of the animals.

If not, then I can see why the point I'm trying to make here would have no impact on you.

 

[gluadys]

Finally, if a story is told about a historical person, it is true if the event is historical ... foibles and all.

I would require one more criterion: that the writer intends to write about this person in a historical or biographical way. If the writer intentionally weaves a historical person into a work of fiction, the fiction does not become history. But neither is it a lie, since the writer intends it to be read as fiction.

So, if David believed the earth to be the center of the universe and he said it, it should be so recorded. The fact is, we don't know where the center is, or if one even exists. Maybe the earth is the center, maybe it's not. Therefore, for us or David to put words in God's mouth would be an untruth. If it is recorded in the Bible as, "God said," then I believe God said it.

Most "geocentric" references in scripture occur in the context of praising God i.e. in 2nd or 3rd person (How great is the Lord/ How great are you, Lord who set the earth on foundations....etc.) One exception is when God speaks in the 1st person out of the whirlwind to Job using the same sort of terminology.

We have focused in on the historical accounts in the Bible, and maybe that is why you conclude what you did. To me it seems you are saying that the history is irrelevant. Whether or not the events actually occurred is secondary to the point of the story. As such, you go no further (or not much farther) than a historian would in what you will say about the historicity of the Bible.

The history is important to me. It is God showing his faithfulness.

This is the essential difference between "history" as defined in a modern secular way and the sort of "history" we have in scripture. The reason we have any history in the bible at all is because the Israelites saw their history as God showing his faithfulness to them. The events were recounted as signs of God's mighty acts to save Israel, to call them to remembrance as signs of hope in the present and for the future and encourage a reciprocal faith and trust in God. They were never recounted simply as unvarnished history.

But this mode of recalling history has a double edge. Do the events actually express God's faithfulness or is it the faith of the writers that leads them to give this interpretation to the events? Obviously, one's answer will depend on one's own faith!!

Take an example. Suppose we had an agreement between a believer and a non-believer that the Israelites defeated the Amalekites at Rephidim (Exodus 17) and even that the sight of Moses holding up his arms calling on God was a key factor in the Israelite victory. Is that God showing his faithfulness to Israel, or was it simply that the Israelites became fearful when their leader showed signs of weakening? What we know is the way the writer, using the eyes of faith, saw it. And we honour that by our own faith. And it is also the case that just because the writer is a person of faith and presents the events in light of that faith doesn't mean the writer is mistaken!!

He does more than talk - more than tell stories. He acts. If God has acted in the past, why would he not tell us about it? And if God tells us about a past historical event, he will not tell a falsehood. As soon as we start to think people have clouded those past events with things that may or may not have happened, we concede that God cannot overcome the imperfections of human nature and we no longer have evidence of his faithfulness.

I think what we can say is that the events per se are not the evidence. We can't access the events, and in any case, the role God played in them may be ambiguous.

The text is our evidence. But we know that text was written by people of faith for people of faith. It is not, and cannot be, simply history. Since the purpose is not just to tell history, but to encourage faith, trust and hope, especially in difficult times, the very choice of events as well as the mode of presentation is defined by that purpose. Certain events in their history become iconic (like the ride of Paul Revere or Washington crossing the Delaware in early American history) and take on more or less of the trappings of legend.

I think you're making too much of this. Can you reference a study on this practice?

Oh, I'm not that much of a biblical scholar to have references at my fingertips. There is a reference in this Wikipedia article:
Eponymous author - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also quite a bit on line about eponymous writing in the bible, especially Genesis. Here is one example on page 133 of Lawrence Boadt's "Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction"
Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction - Lawrence Boadt - Google Books

It's not one of those "they did it back then but we don't" kind of things.

Of course it is. Eponymous writing today is mostly in the form of pen names or ghost writing.

God is not bound by common practice and so would not have allowed such to lead him into an untruth.

Not bound, perhaps, but respectful and accommodating. After all, if one wishes to be understood, it helps to use the idiom of those to whom one wishes to communicate.

He actually said that? To Jonah? How did you separate this from the myth?

It is not necessary to separate them. As you said, in a fictional story the aim is to make a point, and if the point is true, the story is true. Well, this is the point of this story. These are the words the author put in God's mouth. And given that this is also scripture, we can say the author was inspired by God to have God say these words in this story. So, they are God's words because the inspired author says they are.

I don't see how you get that from the verse. When it says God made the animals it means he didn't make them? That's an odd interpretation.

I don't know how you conclude that from what I said.

No, my point was that if God made the animals, he determined them.

Well, that is your criterion. I just don't see God making the animals and God determining the animals as necessarily connected. I don't know where that logic is coming from.

People say a lot of things. I'm more interested in a Scriptural position than a speculative one. But I can see how the way you interpret the Bible could lead you to this conclusion.

I think all one can say directly from scripture is that it is God's intention to save the whole of creation. God's purpose includes the redemption of humanity but is not limited to the redemption of humanity. The redemption of humanity is important because creation cannot be saved without humanity. (and perhaps vice versa?)

But in terms of a question about your particular dog, I don't see any relevant comment in scripture, hence the resort to speculation.

Based on the way you've interpreted Gen 1:25, maybe 1:26 would not lead you to the conclusion that the creation of people was something unique - something apart from the creation of the animals.

I would certainly see humanity as a unique animal; the only animal, so far as we know, endowed with the capacity both to enjoy a conscious relationship with God and to insist on autonomy from God. The two qualities of humanity in Genesis one are to be made in the image of God and to rule over the other animals as a lord. Those are what distinguish humanity from other animals, but they don't mean humans are not animals. It is more that humanity has been given a unique office, role and responsibility (something like the President, or the Queen of England). That office, that role, sets the person apart from others of their kind, but doesn't make them a totally different kind.

If not, then I can see why the point I'm trying to make here would have no impact on you.

Now I am curious as to what point you are trying to make.

 

[Papias]

Hi Resha -

I just have time to respond to one side point in the discussion (first day of school and need to get the kids going!), but will return to the main points soon.

you wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Just a point of clarification - the Missouri synod and the ELCA differ on Biblical interpretation, as you have discussed some above.

....
What is now called the Missouri Synod used to be the largest Lutheran church in the U.S. - and 2nd only to the Catholics IIRC.

Just to review some numbers, Catholics make up around 25% of the US population, with LCMS at about 0.8%. With Southern Baptists at ~6%, I bet the combined lutheran (at 2% today) was perhaps third, likely fourth (after the methodists).

Then came what is called the "Seminex" incident in the 1970s. The result is that what became the ELCA left us, not the other way round. We retained all the original seminaries, etc.

When a group splits, and one side is significantly larger than the other, one could argue about who left who, and who "stayed", but in the absense of clear language from both sides that agree who left, it often feels like the smaller, splinter group is the one who "left". Not that it matters. The ELCA is about twice the size of the LCMS.

Anyway, I wouldn't say we are "doctinally required" to be creationist ... depending on what you mean by that.

I'm basing that on the LCMS "Belief and Practice" statements, which says the LCMS "believes, teaches, and confesses" evolution denial. Under "Evolution and Creation", it reads:

​

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believes,teaches
​

and confesses that Adam and Eve were real historic individuals
and that the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual,
not merely a “myth”or a “story”made up to explain the origin
of all things.
We would also be making a very serious error simply to
accept the theories of science without question.Many aspects
of evolutionary theory are directly contradictory to God’s
Word.Evolution cannot be “baptized”to make it compatible​

with the Christian faith.
​

Belief and Practice - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103

The same statement paper also includes a lot of support for creationist ideas, says "directly contradictory", and relies on creationist sources.

Not that I like it, but there are plenty of LCMS who think evolution is correct.

They might not be aware of the above. I see that all the time in both directions - unawareness of a churches position. I can't count how many times I've talked with YEC Catholics who are unaware that the Pope has said evolution (UCD) is "virtually certain".

Evolution is not a "salvation" issue.

agreed.

but aren't the few "salvation issues" things that the LCMS shares with most other Christian churchs (the resurrection, etc.), and much simpler than the full doctrine?

Have a blessed day-

Papias

 

[frogman2x]

Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whales actually did grow fins and blowholes. How else do you think a mammal can survive under water

This is a typical response---they have fins and a blowhole so it must have happened.

Of course it happened. The grew them because thieir parents had the gene for fins and a blowhole. You know it's that old "after it kind" thing.

What you have to explain is how a dog-like animal with no gene for fins and a blowhole produced a kid with those characteristisc.

Maybe just wading around in the water for a gazillion years will do it.

kermit