Psalm 119:89
FReegards!
Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
;)
Look, you asked a question: “Has the Bible ever changed?” I replied, quite accurately, that yes, it quite certainly had. I even pointed out HOW it had changed; none of which has been disputed - nor CAN it be disputed, since it’s acknowledged as fact by Christians, non-Christians, anyone who’s familiar with the history.
I still don’t really know what your point was, although I suspect it’s the typical fallacy that seems to be pushed a lot. Every time we find that some aspect of our understanding of evolution has been a bit too simplistic (in this case it was simply the assumption that genetic nature is fixed at birth rather than somewhat flexible with genetic changes gained during life passable to succeeding generations), a bunch of people jump up and say, “SEE! SEE! THAT MEANS THE WHOLE THING IS FALSE!”
But it means no such thing. Scientists (and the general population) are not abandoning evolution. Over time, even as our understanding of the process becomes more complex, the opposite is happening.
It’s pretty silly, really. It’s kind of like standing up and proclaiming “Henry Ford was WRONG! The Wright brothers were WRONG!” simply because we now have better automobiles than the much more rudimentary versions they produced.
And incidentally, the Bible already HAS gone through EXTREMELY radical changes to create your current understanding of God!
If we start with the first books, they were written... when? At least around 1500 BC?
Books were continually written and started to be accepted as "scripture" over the next 1500 years.
No sooner did the Jews start to decide exactly which books were in the official Bible and which were out, than along comes an entire new movement which RADICALLY departed from the prevailing understanding of God. All of a sudden God wasn't just the holy and transcendent Creator God, he was also (and more primarily) a Father who was prepared to sacrifice His Son for the sins of mankind.
This was such a radical change that it didn't just modify Judaism, it created an entire new major world religion.
I think your point was along the lines of "Darwin didn't get it right, but the Bible has always been right and hasn't had to be changed."
Sorry, it just doesn't wash. Our understanding of God, even the basic form of todays Bible, has taken, at a bare MINIMUM, at least 1,500 years of thought, debate and councils to take shape. Our understanding of evolution has only been in play for 1/10th of that amount of time.
Hopefully.
I didn't change the subject; celmak did (from an article pointing out a refinement in our understanding of the processes by which evolution happens), by asking the question "Has the Bible changed?" Presumably his point was that the Bible, and our understanding of God, has not gone through the same kind of process as our understanding of evolution.
But this idea is entirely not true, and I explained why. That's all.
Its always a laugh to see someone that considers themself a scientist acting as though they really believe that evolution could have happened.
Or is it just the goofy writers?
There have been books added since the book of Genesis (which is over 2000 years old at the least), yes; but the following books, have they been consistent with what Genesis states about God? Or have they contradicted, or found inaccurate, what Genesis states? Please give an example of any part of the text of the book of Genesis in the Bible that is different from our understanding of God today.
And how does Darwin’s theory in “On the Origin of Species” do as to consistency with new findings? Do you think that new findings in evolution compliment or contradict, or even find Darwin to be inaccurate? There have been books on the theory of evolution since “On the Origin of Species”, yes; but have these books been consistent with what “On the Origin of Species”states about evolution? Or have they contradicted, or found inaccurate, what Darwin wrote?
”All of a sudden God wasn't just the holy and transcendent Creator God, he was also (and more primarily) a Father who was prepared to sacrifice His Son for the sins of mankind.”
I see a compliment here, where is the contradiction?
”Our understanding of God, even the basic form of todays Bible, has taken, at a bare MINIMUM, at least 1,500 years of thought, debate and councils to take shape. Our understanding of evolution has only been in play for 1/10th of that amount of time.”
Do you equate the changes of our understanding of God with what has been written in the text? I see a difference between understanding and what has been written. Our understanding is nothing more than what we see at our vantage point, this can be different from person to person; but the text of Genesis has not changed over the 2000 years to say that God is any different from the God of the rest of the books in the Bible, or vice versa. Can you say that “in 1/10 of the time” the writings of the theory of evolution are no different from the theory of evolution’s genensis in the text of “On the Origin of Species?”
“Scientists (and the general population) are not abandoning evolution. Over time, even as our understanding of the process becomes more complex, the opposite is happening.”
I believe your right about the opposite is happening, but could it be because more and more scientist are trying to come up with a new theory to combat the vacuous holes in the theory of evolution?
When the enlightenment comes you will understand it isn’t time that moves back. I have 10,000 year old coins in my possession that reminds me. What moves back is still a mystery to me but it happens. I am not at liberty.
This isn't specific to Genesis, but the entire New Testament radically modifies not only people's understanding of the Old Testament, but people's understanding of God. People are "no longer under the Law."
And yes, this is understood as a modification of the way people relate to God, and not a contradiction. I get that.
But new discoveries in the field of evolution are also a modification of our understanding of the original basic concept.
Incidentally, the New Testament itself outlines how radically different Jesus' teaching was from what the Jewish people (and their leaders) were expecting. Why do you think they railroaded him and handed him over to be crucified?
There are also a couple other problems here.
1) There were many ancient stories of origins that could've been incorporated into the Bible, and there were many books that could have been selected from to make up the canon. It is therefore no surprise that the Bible is not made up of a bunch of contradictory books.
If they had been contradictory, they never would've been selected to be included in the first place.
2) While Darwin's theory is actually falsifiable (which also means that it is subject to the scientific method), the book of Genesis is NOT falsifiable. Darwin's theory can be TESTED. The book of Genesis CAN'T.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the Genesis account (however you interpret it) is either untrue or inaccurate. But it does mean that it is simply not subject to any known scientific-type test of its proof.
Or, to put it another way: Genesis talks about WHO did something. Evolution talks about HOW a natural process happens over time.
One can be tested. The other can't.
Again, I'm not alleging contradiction between the old and new testaments. But the New Testament CERTAINLY MODIFIED people's understanding of God.
I believe your right about the opposite is happening, but could it be because more and more scientist are trying to come up with a new theory to combat the vacuous holes in the theory of evolution?
Given that Darwin's basic idea continues to gain acceptance, I think you're incorrect about their being "vacuous holes." You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe you're incorrect.
Sorry. I should've underlined that rather than italicizing. By italicizing it looked like a quote. I meant to emphasize.
Sorry once again. Obviously that should've been "there" rather than "their." I don't usually type the wrong homophone. It's late. :-)
Psalm 119:89
FReegards!
Not to mention...
No, Jesus teaching got back to what the OT was really all about. It was the Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had perverted it for their own gain. THAT'S what they hated about Him, was that Jesus exposed them for the frauds they were.
Salvation has always been through faith, not works. The Law wasn't put in place so that men could earn their salvation but to lead us to the Messiah.
It's always been faith in the Messiah that saved, either faith in His coming, or faith in Him once He came.
You can’t falsify the truth.
Again, we are back to “understanding (your point) ” vs. textual changes that would have to be made to meet the understanding (my point). I’ll rephrase the questions to hopefully make it more understandable:
Would you have to make textual changes in Genesis, (or any other book of the Bible for that matter) to meet our understanding of God?
Would you have to make textual changes in Darwin's “Origin of Species” to meet our understanding of the TOE?
“There were many ancient stories of origins that could've been incorporated into the Bible, and there were many books that could have been selected from to make up the canon. It is therefore no surprise that the Bible is not made up of a bunch of contradictory books.”
And,
“If they had been contradictory, they never would've been selected to be included in the first place.”
Interesting, this reasoning correlates to the first point. Let’s see what happens when I rephrase your statements:
“There were many earlier stories of origins that could've been incorporated into “the Origins of Species” and there were many books that could have been selected from to make up the todays understanding of TOE. It is therefore no surprise that TOE is not made up of a bunch of contradictory books.”
And,
“If they had been contradictory, they never would've been selected to be included in the first place.”
So why do you think this reasoning does not work with TOE and “Origin of Species?”
“Again, I'm not alleging contradiction between the old and new testaments. But the New Testament CERTAINLY MODIFIED people's understanding of God.”
Which, again, leads the main point of my questions above in bold.
“Given that Darwin's basic idea continues to gain acceptance, I think you're incorrect about their being "vacuous holes." You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe you're incorrect.”
There may be more scientists that accept the theory of evolution (TOE), there are more people becoming scientists. But given that now there are more scientists than ever that see greater and greater problems in TOE, I see its eventual downfall for a better theory; and sooner rather than later. I’ll agree to disagree with you on this point.
“While Darwin's theory is actually falsifiable (which also means that it is subject to the scientific method), the book of Genesis is NOT falsifiable. Darwin's theory can be TESTED. The book of Genesis CAN'T.
This one can lead into many directions, so it will need an example of what category of science that would include TOE (geology, zoology, etc.). But let us settle one point at a time; so please answer the questions in bold first.
“Incidentally, the New Testament itself outlines how radically different Jesus' teaching was from what the Jewish people (and their leaders) were expecting. Why do you think they railroaded him and handed him over to be crucified?”
Good question, one that we should get into after we settle the first issue. But please, let us settle the first issue, please answer the questions in bold and then we can converse on the rest of the issues.
That completely misses the point. 'Truth' is meaningless unless it can be tested or falsified.
For example, how meaningful is the 'Truth' that Despator (Celtic God of Creation) and I are good friends and that he is going to burn up the world because he is pissed that we don't worship him anymore?
How is that 'Truth' any different from the God Allah telling his people to cut off hands for stealing, or the God Jehovah telling people to eat his flesh?
Scientific 'truth' is testable, it makes predictions that can be falsified. If the predictions fail, the 'truth' was wrong.
Give it another 1,350+ years, like the Bible had, and it will.
Right. She totally misses the point. To say something can be "falsified" simply means: Is there any test whereby we might be able to determine whether it is true or false?
We can observe whether the processes that produce changes in species are taking place. Granted, it's not easy, since these take place over long periods of time. But still, it's possible.
It is our observation of what is actually happening that leads us to modify our understanding. In this case, scientists were able to test the theory that genetic makeup is fixed at birth, and that the sole mechanism that produces different genetics in the next and following generations is caused by "natural selection."
While natural selection obviously plays a part, they also discovered that there is a previously-unrecognized mechanism at work: life experiences also produce genetic changes that can be passed down to succeeding generations.
This is not a rejection of the concept of evolution. It's a more clear understanding of how it works.
Yet every time we discover that our ideas about one of the details of evolution was incorrect, that it works differently than we thought, we have a chorus of people who will stand up and yell, "See! See! That means the whole theory is wrong!"
As I noted earlier, this is rather like people going around proclaiming "Henry Ford was WRONG! The Wright brothers were WRONG!" - simply because we know now better ways to build cars and airplanes than they were able to come up with.
Anyway, this more clear understanding has come about because evolution is a TESTABLE idea. The Genesis account of origins may very well convey an essential truth. But it's not something that can be directly observed or duplicated. Our only doorways into determining whether or not we believe it are: Do we believe the historical account? Do we feel these ancient writings are historically accurate? Do we trust the writer and the scribes who passed the account down through history? And do we, if we choose to make our decisions by subjective means, trust our own feelings which may tell us to believe that God made the world?
Here you make a 'truth' claim. So I ask you, is your statement true? If yes, how do we test your truth claim?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.