Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[wigginhall]

Zen lunacy

Thank you for that detailed and complex reply.  As you may appreciate, I will need some time to deal with all the points that you bring up.   

[Owlswing]

Thank you for that detailed and complex reply.  As you may appreciate, I will need some time to deal with all the points that you bring up.

"Bring up" as in "raise to maturity" or "bring up" as in "vomit/regurgitate"?

[Gordon]

Moderator:

A number of posts, primarily those about Essex, have been removed from this thread as a derail and will be compiled into a new thread. I'll add the link to the new thread here once it has been created.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15599.msg732250#new

[Spud]

Hi Wiggs,

Just to add the question the 12-year-old me asked (and has still never had answered): why too would a god concerned to install his favourite species bother with several hundred millions of years-worth of dinosaurs before getting around to us just a few seconds before midnight relatively speaking?

Maybe he made dinosaurs at the same time as us? You may have won the argument if it's based on the big bang and evolution from single celled life, but what about the evidence that there is actually little evolutionary change within species over time? Fossil bats are similar to living bats. Would you still have a problem invoking a God if the evidence suggested goo-to-you evolution wasn't demonstrable?

[Maeght]

Maybe he made dinosaurs at the same time as us? You may have won the argument if it's based on the big bang and evolution from single celled life, but what about the evidence that there is actually little evolutionary change within species over time? Fossil bats are similar to living bats. Would you still have a problem invoking a God if the evidence suggested goo-to-you evolution wasn't demonstrable?

There are differences between the rare fossils of bats and modern bats. There is no issue with little change within species over long periods of time since changes only become established if they give an advantage when it comes to survical (of those modified genes). There is no evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution of course.

[wigginhall]

Don't know much about bats, but horses are a well-known example of big changes via evolution.    I think they were dog-sized originally, but went through changes in size, shape of teeth, shape of feet, habitat, and so on.   I can't remember how many species have existed, but several hundred I think, Equus is the only surviving genus (I think).   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Maybe he made dinosaurs at the same time as us? You may have won the argument if it's based on the big bang and evolution from single celled life, but what about the evidence that there is actually little evolutionary change within species over time? Fossil bats are similar to living bats. Would you still have a problem invoking a God if the evidence suggested goo-to-you evolution wasn't demonstrable?

First, big bang theory is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Second, the data on fossil ages comes from various and independent techniques that agree on the dates. No-one with any knowledge of the subject seriously doubts these findings.

Third, there’s overwhelming evidence of changes within species over time – try looking at the fossil record for cetaceans (dolphins, whales and porpoises) for example.

Fourth, that some species have stayed relatively static over long periods just tells you that they were sufficiently well-adapted to their environments long ago and so there was no particular environmental pressure to evolve after that. 

Fifth, even if somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, that would provide not one jot of a scintilla of a smidgin of evidence for an alternative explanation. If your conjecture is instead “goddidit” you’d still have a mountain to climb to demonstrate that claim.

To summarise, the ToE is as well supported as the theory that women give birth to babies. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not hypnotising storks that are doing it but that’s the equivalent scale of the problem you'd give yourself if you dismissed the ToE out of hand in favour of an entirely unevidenced faith belief.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To summarise, the ToE is as well supported as the theory that women give birth to babies.   

I am an evolutionist but I would like a citation for the above. Since there are several billion people born and millions more if we include the other mammals (except the monotremata) I am not sure Evolution can claim such a weight of evidence.

Unless Hillside can prove his statement he disserves science with such hyperbolic provocative triumphalism.

[SteveH]

I am an evolutionist but I would like a citation for the above. Since there are several billion people born and millions more if we include the other mammals (except the monotremata) I am not sure Evolution can claim such a weight of evidence.

Unless Hillside can prove his statement he disserves science with such hyperbolic provocative triumphalism.

Evolution is pretty well proven, but BHS was being a bit hyperbolic, certainly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evolution is pretty well proven, but BHS was being a bit hyperbolic, certainly.

Yes with the emphasis on the Bolic.

[Spud]

There are differences between the rare fossils of bats and modern bats.

Fossil bats are still recognizable as bats, despite changes.

There is no issue with little change within species over long periods of time since changes only become established if they give an advantage when it comes to survical (of those modified genes).

So you believe that over 50 million years, bats underwent very little change, while whales were evolving from land dwelling animals?

There is no evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed.

I think there are clues. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.

Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution of course.

I mean the principle that everything that exists pre-existed in some different form.

[Spud]

Don't know much about bats, but horses are a well-known example of big changes via evolution.    I think they were dog-sized originally, but went through changes in size, shape of teeth, shape of feet, habitat, and so on.   I can't remember how many species have existed, but several hundred I think, Equus is the only surviving genus (I think).

A skeleton of the first so-called horse (Eohippus) is shown here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eohippus#/media/File:HyracotheriumVasacciensisLikeHorse.JPG
Can you present evidence that this creature evolved into horses?

[Gordon]

Fossil bats are still recognizable as bats, despite changes.So you believe that over 50 million years, bats underwent very little change, while whales were evolving from land dwelling animals?

Perhaps you need to investigate the science in respect of bats and whales - do that and I suspect you'll gain some understanding.

I think there are clues. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.

Doesn't exactly overwhelm the science though: what do professional paleontologists regard this tombstone? You're taking the piss of course: right?
 

I mean the principle that everything that exists pre-existed in some different form.

Are you referring to the TofE?

[Gordon]

A skeleton of the first so-called horse (Eohippus) is shown here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eohippus#/media/File:HyracotheriumVasacciensisLikeHorse.JPG
Can you present evidence that this creature evolved into horses?

https://www.britannica.com/animal/horse/Evolution-of-the-horse

Do you think this summary has got it wrong?

[Maeght]

Fossil bats are still recognizable as bats, despite changes.

Yes,. And?

So you believe that over 50 million years, bats underwent very little change, while whales were evolving from land dwelling animals?I

Its not about belief, its,what the scientific evidence indicates.  I have no issues with accepting that, and such things do not cast doubt on evolutionary theory.

I think there are clues. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.

What would such a depiction indicate exactly?

I mean the principle that everything that exists pre-existed in some different form.

A different form? Can you explain what your understanding of the big bang is and what you mean by this?

[SteveH]

I think there are clues [that dinosaurs and humans co-existed]. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.

No doubt ancient and medieval people occasionally found largely complete dinosaur fossils, due to landslides and quarrying, and did their own imaginative reconstructions. That is probably where dragon legends come from.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#1384

Spud,

Fifth, even if somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, that would provide not one jot of a scintilla of a smidgin of evidence for an alternative explanation.

Which just goes to show that the theory is not falsifiable by science's own standards!! If somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, of course it would be evidence that there is an alternative explanation! Try saying to someone that 2+2=5 is wrong, but that doesn't mean that there is another answer!

To summarise, the ToE is as well supported as the theory that women give birth to babies.

And as usual, the analogies used to illustrate the explanation also illustrate the flaw. There is eye-witness observable evidence available to anyone that women give birth to babies. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any claim involving common-descent evolution?

Evolution that is observable to and verifiable by all shows adaptation and variation. It works with what is already present. But some have extrapolated from here to claim that evolution is responsible for how that which it works with came to be. It is quintessentially a self-creation process and has at its heart the same mistake as those in philosophy who think they can create their own truth, refusing to acknowledge that it is defined outside of that for which it applies. Both exist as a mechanism of denying the author of life and the author of truth.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not hypnotising storks that are doing it but that’s the equivalent scale of the problem you'd give yourself if you dismissed the ToE out of hand in favour of an entirely unevidenced faith belief.   

Which is you, as ever assuming the conclusion of that which you are trying to demonstrate. You have already decided that there is no evidence for a faith belief, so you make up an analogy for which there is no evidence and link the two.

[jeremyp]

So you believe that over 50 million years, bats underwent very little change, while whales were evolving from land dwelling animals?

Why do you think that's a problem? As long as an organism remains well adapted to its environment, natural selection acts to prevent change. If there are no environmental factors pressuring bat populations to change their physical form, their physical form will not change. That's not to say bats haven't changed over 50 million years, just that the changes didn't fossilise.

I think there are clues. A centuries old depiction of a dinosaur on a tombstone in a cathedral up north is one.

You are joking aren't you? Humans and dinosaurs are separated by the best part of 65 million years.

[Maeght]

#1384
Which just goes to show that the theory is not falsifiable by science's own standards!! If somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, of course it would be evidence that there is an alternative explanation!

You have misunderstood. This would not provide evidence for an alternative explanation e.g. God/creation, but would mean that there is an alternative explanation. ToE is certainly falsifiable by science - it just hasn't happened yet.

[Maeght]

And as usual, the analogies used to illustrate the explanation also illustrate the flaw. There is eye-witness observable evidence available to anyone that women give birth to babies. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any claim involving common-descent evolution?

On that level the analogy doesn't hold up perhaps, but are you saying you only accept things which have been observed?

[Maeght]

But some have extrapolated from here to claim that evolution is responsible for how that which it works with came to be. It is quintessentially a self-creation process and has at its heart the same mistake as those in philosophy who think they can create their own truth, refusing to acknowledge that it is defined outside of that for which it applies. Both exist as a mechanism of denying the author of life and the author of truth.

Who has extrapolated that? ToE is about changes in existing life forms not how life was formed.

[Gordon]

Evolution that is observable to and verifiable by all shows adaptation and variation. It works with what is already present. But some have extrapolated from here to claim that evolution is responsible for how that which it works with came to be. It is quintessentially a self-creation process and has at its heart the same mistake as those in philosophy who think they can create their own truth, refusing to acknowledge that it is defined outside of that for which it applies. Both exist as a mechanism of denying the author of life and the author of truth.

It seems you don't know your abiogenesis from your evolution: I note you mention 'truth' again, which reminds me you were going to tell us all about the 'properties of truth' you mentioned - any progress on that front yet?

[SteveH]

#1384
Which just goes to show that the theory is not falsifiable by science's own standards!! If somehow someone could ever overturn the vast body of evidence that supports and validates the theory of evolution, of course it would be evidence that there is an alternative explanation! Try saying to someone that 2+2=5 is wrong, but that doesn't mean that there is another answer!
And as usual, the analogies used to illustrate the explanation also illustrate the flaw. There is eye-witness observable evidence available to anyone that women give birth to babies. How much eye-witness evidence do you have for any claim involving common-descent evolution?

Evolution that is observable to and verifiable by all shows adaptation and variation. It works with what is already present. But some have extrapolated from here to claim that evolution is responsible for how that which it works with came to be. It is quintessentially a self-creation process and has at its heart the same mistake as those in philosophy who think they can create their own truth, refusing to acknowledge that it is defined outside of that for which it applies. Both exist as a mechanism of denying the author of life and the author of truth.
Which is you, as ever assuming the conclusion of that which you are trying to demonstrate. You have already decided that there is no evidence for a faith belief, so you make up an analogy for which there is no evidence and link the two.

"Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian" was JBS Haldane's famous example of something that would falsify evolution. It is eminently falsifiable, but never has been falsified, because it isn't false. As for the rest of your post - what a confused and confusing mish-mash of cod-philosophy! Evolution is observable in the fossil record and in our genes. You are also, like most creationists, confusing the theory of evolution with abiogenesis - the origin of life. Evolution is about what happens to life after it's got started. It has nothing to sayabout how it gets started.

[Maeght]

Creationists, in my view, intentionally conflate evolution and abiogenesis. Since we don't know how life started on this planet this is an attempt to cast some of that 'don't know' onto the ToE.

[SteveH]

Creationists, in my view, intentionally conflate evolution and abiogenesis. Since we don't know how life started on this planet this is an attempt to cast some of that 'don't know' onto the ToE.

Exactemundo.