@kellyjay said
I'm not arguing some weigh differently than others, only that what is weak is weak, strong is strong, it is what it is. A fossil doesn't change because a Thesistic Creationist is looking at it then turns into something else when an Atheistic evolutionist is looking at it. It is what it is, our interpretations may vary in strength, but that will not change the evidence from b ...[text shortened]... nce you may like/dislike (I tried to cover my bases) 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecxc2uU2sBI

The weight of evidence of scripture is always slight, whether you agree that that is the case or not. Simply believing the scripture to be true doesn't change that fact.

@avalanchethecat said
The weight of evidence of scripture is always slight, whether you agree that that is the case or not. Simply believing the scripture to be true doesn't change that fact.

The link wasn't about scripture but most certainly about evidence. I think the case for scripture isn't slight at all, and it is remarkably accurate in every sense of the word. It can be looked at historically and every other way, but it isn't without controversy even that should be expected considering the content and what is discussed within it.

@kellyjay said
The link wasn't about scripture but most certainly about evidence. I think the case for scripture isn't slight at all, and it is remarkably accurate in every sense of the word. It can be looked at historically and every other way, but it isn't without controversy even that should be expected considering the content and what is discussed within it.

With respect, whether you think the case for scripture isn't slight is not relevant. The relevant factors are that (i) it is ancient, (ii) it details magical and miraculous events, and (iii) the writers, the people that preserved the writings, the people that collected the writings and the people who determined which of the writings to include in the bible all did so with the intent of proclaiming and disseminating the 'glory of god'. One might also include the fact that it has been translated through different languages, but I think the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls tends to mediate this concern.

I grant you that there is a possibility that even considering the above factors, the stories contained in the bible are a true and accurate record of things that actually occurred, but from a WoE perspective, an objective assessment is obliged to regard it's relevance as slight.

I didn't click your link, but I will now.
edit: Ok I don't really want to spend a hour listening to that. Is the point that evidence is sometimes tampered with? I agree absolutely, I've worked in archaeology and I know very well that sometimes the final report isn't always a fair and accurate assessment of the remains and contexts uncovered.

What is inarguable, however, is that there is an incontrovertible sequence of fossil types in securely dated contexts. You only find hominid fossils in relatively recent strata. Fossils of horses, badgers, cows, pigs, llamas, giraffes, hippos and so on, are all recovered in only relatively recent contexts. Mammals of any kind are extremely rare prior to the KT boundary (and then only 'primitive' forms), and although there are some examples of dinosaur fossils recovered above this layer, there is at least good evidence to suggest that they appear there due to redeposition. Birds don't appear alongside dinosaurs, but they do follow them and share so many characteristics that many experts consider them to actually be modern dinosaurs. The sequence of development - simpler forms early, becoming more complex up to extinction - can be followed back right to the Cambrian explosion, where there's some sort of mix-and-match going on which we don't really fully understand. There are a number of mass extinctions following which the small number of survivors proliferate and evolve relatively quickly. It would, therefore, be perfectly reasonable to say that ALL fossils which are earlier than modern are "transitional". Species evolve and later become extinct. The sequence of primates leading to Homo Sapiens is quite well understood, although to call it a sequence somewhat glorifies the fossil evidence. There's good reason to suppose that various characteristics evolved in different hominid and hominoid species, and that breeding between these species faciliated their collection into our own line. Fossils of early whales and their ancestors offer another particularly excellent overview of species clearly evolving through time. There is simply no other theory which even remotely begins to explain the fossil record. One doesn't 'believe' in evolution; one looks at the evidence and accepts that it is the only candidate theory which even comes close to explaining the incontrovertible fossil evidence. You might as well assert that gravity is 'false'. Evolution certainly happens; 'macro' and micro. Do we claim to understand every precise detail? We do not, but the general theory cannot be falsified using the evidence of fossils. And then there's the genetic evidence...

@avalanchethecat said
With respect, whether you think the case for scripture isn't slight is not relevant. The relevant factors are that (i) it is ancient, (ii) it details magical and miraculous events, and (iii) the writers, the people that preserved the writings, the people that collected the writings and the people who determined which of the writings to include in the bible all did so ...[text shortened]... l theory cannot be falsified using the evidence of fossils. And then there's the genetic evidence...

Difficult attempting to discuss something with you that you are not willing to give a hearing to an opinion contrary to yours.

I have not read your post yet.

@kellyjay said
Difficult attempting to discuss something with you that you are not willing to give a hearing to an opinion contrary to yours.

Do you dispute any of the numbered points?

Can you offer an alternative theory which fits the fossil evidence?

@avalanchethecat said
Do you dispute any of the numbered points?

Can you offer an alternative theory which fits the fossil evidence?

I am currently working from home and glancing at my phone once my eye start bleeding from working on spreadsheets. As soon as I can I’ll look into it,

@avalanchethecat said
With respect, whether you think the case for scripture isn't slight is not relevant. The relevant factors are that (i) it is ancient, (ii) it details magical and miraculous events, and (iii) the writers, the people that preserved the writings, the people that collected the writings and the people who determined which of the writings to include in the bible all did so ...[text shortened]... l theory cannot be falsified using the evidence of fossils. And then there's the genetic evidence...

I don't care to debate evolution; the thing about that theory once we nail down what we mean when we say evolution isn't a concern for me. I spent years in R&D generating data on tests concerning CPU. I know we can look at something tested and believe we are golden and not be.

Unless there is total control over all conditions, we can miss something and what we think is true which isn't. If there is a problem we recognize was it a mechanical issue, a software issue, someone had a brainfart as they designed their tests, did the technicians miss a step in a process, was the test done on a Tuesday with the engineer standing on his right foot twirling his left hand in the air? 🙂

These are all tests done in real-time in the here and now; anything could happen, giving us a false sense of security until red flags start appearing, signaling things don't line up. So these dates of millions or billions of years, right or wrong, if you assume they are infallible, you have much more faith than I do. Yes, we have different tests done on different things looking at the dates in a myriad of different methods supposedly all showing what we expect to see, and they could be spot-on accurate. I don't debate time, and I'll grant you any amount you want; tell me how long you need, then the real questions can occur. How fast does your process work to get from A to Z?

I have significant issues with fossils because what we see are they show up fully formed disappear, another group shows up fully formed and disappears again and again with all of them. So instead of a tree of life, if you believe in a common ancestor, it looks more like a bunch of lawns with several lifeforms just popping out here and there.

Even that isn't my most significant complaint after where did everything come from out of nothing? Which the link draws out rather nicely, so life in general and evolution if true, the mechanisms that keep them in play without having it all fall apart, is it mindless or intelligently designed?

The thing about all ancient writings is that they are old and that has nothing to do with the truthfulness of something discussed. Someone writing 1+1=2 a million years ago doesn't become false at 900K years old due to time.

@kellyjay said
I have significant issues with fossils because what we see are they show up fully formed disappear, another group shows up fully formed and disappears again and again with all of them. So instead of a tree of life, if you believe in a common ancestor, it looks more like a bunch of lawns with several lifeforms just popping out here and there.

Even that isn't my most signif ...[text shortened]... ussed. Someone writing 1+1=2 a million years ago doesn't become false at 900K years old due to time.

"I have significant issues with fossils because..."
This is why Darwin's gradualist view is no longer popular, having been largely supplanted by Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium'. This is how science works; if the data doesn't fit the hypothesis, the hypothesis is amended, if possible, and replaced otherwise. We now consider that the pace of evolutionary change is not a constant, which, all things considered, isn't actually an earth shattering idea.

"... where did everything come from out of nothing..."
This isn't really a question about evolution; the beginnings of life on earth are a complete discipline in itself! New research papers are published regularly which offer insights into the possible processes by which complex organic chemistry can become self-replicating and increase in complexity, but I would view with great scepticism any claim made that we fully understand how life came into being. Panspermia is quite a popular concept nowadays, but of course rather like religious ideas this just pushes the origin further back along a chain.

"... ancient writings ... are old and that has nothing to do with the truthfulness ... [thereof]"
Of course, they may be perfectly true and accurate. Great antiquity does introduce great doubt, however; there are a host of reasons why this is the case, but it holds for all ancient writings. Some are obviously less likely to represent truth than others, and those that involve monsters, magic and miracles are quite rightly regarded with greater scepticism.

@avalanchethecat

Of course, they may be perfectly true and accurate. Great antiquity does introduce great doubt, however; there are a host of reasons why this is the case, but it holds for all ancient writings. Some are obviously less likely to represent truth than others, and those that involve monsters, magic and miracles are quite rightly regarded with greater scepticism.

So you would be skeptical if an artist drew a picture of a unicorn as once having lived - a horse with a horn in its forehead. Am I right ?

But you would not have a similar skepticism about human being with the head and face and hair like an ape gazing out towards you?

You would be skeptical about a horse with wings having once lived magically flying in the air? Right?

But a whale swimming in the ocean whose ancestor was cow, a bovine land herbivore whose descendants gradually returned to the ocean - that would be believable?

I think an artist's depiction of ancient superstition you would be skeptical of.
But an artist's depiction of modern superstition you would heartily endorse as
scientific realism.

@avalanchethecat said
"I have significant issues with fossils because..."
This is why Darwin's gradualist view is no longer popular, having been largely supplanted by Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium'. This is how science works; if the data doesn't fit the hypothesis, the hypothesis is amended, if possible, and replaced otherwise. We now consider that the pace of evolutionary change is not ...[text shortened]... those that involve monsters, magic and miracles are quite rightly regarded with greater scepticism.

I like arguing with someone who I find myself agreeing with much of what they say. 🙂

What is popular is meaningless; if something isn't true and we realize it, we have to alter our views to fit what we now know. The trouble with saying only science gives us the truth is that it is never something we can say okay, now we know because it is always we know until we don't. There is nothing wrong with that, but reality is what it is, no matter what we think about it.

Mechanisms, algorithms, stop-starts, improvements, error checking, system integrations, feedback loops, function and forms are all things we see when speaking about designed things. A mindlessness process doesn't require anything; no odds for overcoming for something to occur correctly, degrading happens chance isn't overcome for it to occur.

To build a functional machine that can take energy and convert it into something useful. Time doesn't add to the equation if it cannot happen unless guided; it cannot happen if you have millions of years or billions. The more time available, the longer it is something cannot occur.

Research papers have as much going for them as ancient manuscripts concerning the truth; they either get it right or not. At the risk of putting you off with another talk due to length, I think you'd find it interesting. I'll stop bringing it up at your request. I don't want to put you off by offering things you have no intention of watching.

YouTube

You may dislike the opening. I'd go to 13:15 into it and watch for a few minutes.
I like the whole thing that, however, doesn't mean anything for anyone else.

The thing about the supernatural, if real, it will always appear to be supernatural, and to dismiss anything where it is mentioned out of hand before considering the possibility is putting blinders on. I agree those things are not everyday events; if they were normal, they wouldn't be supernatural. If I were God attempting to establish I was doing something and it wasn't just an everyday occurrence, that would be the way to go. If anyone could rise from the dead, what type of sign would rising from the dead be?

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat
[quote] Of course, they may be perfectly true and accurate. Great antiquity does introduce great doubt, however; there are a host of reasons why this is the case, but it holds for all ancient writings. Some are obviously less likely to represent truth than others, and those that involve monsters, magic and miracles are quite rightly regarded with greater sce ...[text shortened]... t an artist's depiction of modern superstition you would heartily endorse as
scientific realism.

"I think an artist's depiction of ancient superstition you would be skeptical of.
But an artist's depiction of modern superstition you would heartily endorse as
scientific realism."

As an aside, this is something I think about a lot. Even artists' depictions on any matter are a means to push a point of view; this is what we think this dinosaur looked like; I know because I watched the movie Jurrasic park, or you see halos over the heads of people in biblical settings. Both can miss lead big-time; for me, I hate seeing rings of light over people's heads, all the saints and believe it or not, including Jesus. It sets them apart from the rest of us, making them into something entirely above us, turning them into supernatural people who play in the real world. If they are not ordinary people who fart, get sick, get angry, screw up, get things wrong, overindulge, and live everyday lives. That, for me, would make it unreal; miracles would be a supernatural intervention while people who are not ordinary living out everyday lives cannot be something more than we are. Jesus being God in the flesh if He didn't live life from beginning to end as an ordinary man doing the things only that ordinary men could do, He could not have been tested in every point like us.

@kellyjay said
I like arguing with someone who I find myself agreeing with much of what they say. 🙂

What is popular is meaningless; if something isn't true and we realize it, we have to alter our views to fit what we now know. The trouble with saying only science gives us the truth is that it is never something we can say okay, now we know because it is always we know until we don't. T ...[text shortened]... the way to go. If anyone could rise from the dead, what type of sign would rising from the dead be?

"What is popular is meaningless; if something isn't true and we realize it, we have to alter our views to fit what we now know. The trouble with saying only science gives us the truth is that it is never something we can say okay, now we know because it is always we know until we don't. There is nothing wrong with that, but reality is what it is, no matter what we think about it."

I largely agree with you. There are definitely woolly aspects to our currently accepted theory of evolution, and you are of course correct, what happened is what happened, and what we think happened when reconstructing the past from an incomplete fossil record may differ in some or even many aspects. If I seem certain that evolution did take place, I would add the caveat that I accept that there may be an alternative explanation for the fossils we recover; if there is, however, I am unaware of it.

"Mechanisms, algorithms, stop-starts, improvements, error checking, system integrations, feedback loops, function and forms are all things we see when speaking about designed things. A mindlessness process doesn't require anything; no odds for overcoming for something to occur correctly, degrading happens chance isn't overcome for it to occur.

To build a functional machine that can take energy and convert it into something useful. Time doesn't add to the equation if it cannot happen unless guided; it cannot happen if you have millions of years or billions. The more time available, the longer it is something cannot occur."

I'm not completely sure I understand what you're saying here. If it is that you find it unlikely that order can spontaneously result from chaos, that entropy cannot appear to reverse on a local scale, I would have to disagree. Not sure that's what you mean though.

"Research papers have as much going for them as ancient manuscripts concerning the truth;"

Here I strongly disagree. Research papers are peer-reviewed and subject to checks and balances. Ancient manuscripts have no such corrective filter. The books of the bible were copied, collected, collated, translated and republished with a specific intent. You, as a believer, of course feel that this specific intent is to promulgate the 'truth'. I, as a godless heathen, of course disagree. However, other people with minds and educations which dwarf my own, believers and heathens both, came up with the process for calculating Weight of Evidence of various sources. They all agree that scriptural sources should be treated with great suspicion, for the reasons mentioned in a previous post.

I watched some of the video you posted. Again you seem to be arguing that biogenesis is your stumbling block when considering evolution. Again I would say that the two things are seperate. I don't know how life started on Earth, and neither does anyone else, regardless of their beliefs or claims to the contrary. Maybe it started spontaneously through a chain of complex organic chemistry leading to self-replicating molecules and eventually to working cells. Maybe it arrived from space in a spore or virus-like form. Maybe it was deliberately seeded by aliens, or by some ethereal higher being. Maybe some other way I've not thought of. I don't see that it has much bearing on whether or not evolution takes place.

"The thing about the supernatural, if real, it will always appear to be supernatural, and to dismiss anything where it is mentioned out of hand before considering the possibility is putting blinders on. I agree those things are not everyday events; if they were normal, they wouldn't be supernatural. If I were God attempting to establish I was doing something and it wasn't just an everyday occurrence, that would be the way to go. If anyone could rise from the dead, what type of sign would rising from the dead be?"

I'd be delighted to be able to believe in the supernatural. I've put a great deal of effort and time into searching for evidence thereof, and as yet, have found none of any significant weight. I can't see any reason to accord any greater weight to the stories of the bible than those of the ancient Greek theogenies, or the Hindu Vedas or any other ancient writings which deal in monsters, magic and miracles. That said, I'm fully prepared to believe that there is a god, or gods, but if there is I find the critical faculties with which it has endowed me with do not permit me to accept it's existence based on scripture.

@avalanchethecat

Here I strongly disagree. Research papers are peer-reviewed and subject to checks and balances. Ancient manuscripts have no such corrective filter.

Baloney of a significant degree.

New Testament Textural Criticism is alive and well. And there are many professionally trained and skilled "peers" to review scholarly research. That is amongst both believers in and unbelievers in Christian theism.

Debate between New Testament Textural critics - (darling of skeptics to Christianity) Bart Erhman and his equal James White in training on the believer's side.

Bart Erhman verses James White

Part 1 - YouTube&t=2586s

Part 2 - YouTube&t=2690s

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat
[quote] Of course, they may be perfectly true and accurate. Great antiquity does introduce great doubt, however; there are a host of reasons why this is the case, but it holds for all ancient writings. Some are obviously less likely to represent truth than others, and those that involve monsters, magic and miracles are quite rightly regarded with greater sce ...[text shortened]... t an artist's depiction of modern superstition you would heartily endorse as
scientific realism.

" So you would be skeptical if an artist drew a picture of a unicorn as once having lived - a horse with a horn in its forehead. Am I right ? "

What is the artist basing this on? Fairy stories? If so, of course I would be sceptical.

"But you would not have a similar skepticism about human being with the head and face and hair like an ape gazing out towards you?"

I think I would disagree with your terminology; to me the term 'human being' is means a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens; I believe you may be referring to one of our ancestors here. If so, and the the likeness is based on fossil remains, I'd give it a lot more credence than the previous artist's picture of a unicorn, obviously.

" You would be skeptical about a horse with wings having once lived magically flying in the air? Right?"

Obviously.

" But a whale swimming in the ocean whose ancestor was cow, a bovine land herbivore whose descendants gradually returned to the ocean - that would be believable? "

A cow? No, that's silly. A Mesonychid? Yes, there's a good sequence stretching from those to modern cetaceans.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat

Here I strongly disagree. Research papers are peer-reviewed and subject to checks and balances. Ancient manuscripts have no such corrective filter.

New Testament Textural criticism is alive and well. And there are skilled "peers" to review scholarly
research.

Debate between New Testament Textural (darling of skeptic ...[text shortened]... com/watch?v=moHInA9fAsI&t=2586s

Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Mp4v8VQwQ&t=2690s

Sorry, I have not made myself clear; it's not the modern analysis of the ancient texts which is problematic, it's the ancient texts themselves. They survive because they supported the message which believers wished to transmit.