big bang continued

[Macs Son]

Can y'all PLEASE just quote what you are responding to???  Requoting a long, long series of posts every time is confusing and dissuades others from reading your posts (especially when posts are in quotaton marks; it's easier to use the 'quote' feature).  It works much better if you delete everything except what you wish to respond to before you post.  Just a suggestion.....but it makes it easier for everyone.   

Am I the only one here who thinks that a debate on evolution should have it own thread and not be integrated with a thread on the big bang? It appears to me that we have completely diverged from the named topic - I know this not the first time I have encountered this phenomena in my short stint but it does seem to be somewhat inappropriate, not to mention a very inefficient method on focusing on a single subject. Maybe we can just change the thread name to evolution since this is truly what is being debated? Sorry if I offend - it's just a suggestion.

In Christ, Pat

 

 

Hi Pat,

 

The Biblical creation account incorporates the creation of both the universe and life. The naturalistic models separate these into temporally disparate events. Since the same logic is used to justify both, and since it is this logic I am questioning, it shouldn’t matter whether we are dealing with Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang) or Common Ancestry.

 

Also, the two secular models are related. The history proposed by Standard Cosmology provides the massive time-frames required to make Common Ancestry plausible.

Sorry, in my quick read I missed the fact that your problem with the Big Bang was not the evidential expansion of the universe but the massive amount of time in that expansion. Even without the Big Bang, however, we have stars that are millions and even billions of light years away from us and we know by the speed of light it actually has taken millions and even billions of years for that light to reach us. Are we also against that? I don't believe there is anything in Genesis which states a Christian must define the six days of creation as solar days, especially since the solar day was created by God until the 4th day. Throughout history some Christians have misinterpreted the Bible and things like heliocentric theory could have landed you in jail or left you forever an outcast from the Church. Even Biblical giants like Calvin were claiming that the sun revolved around the earth because it says so in the Bible. We don't use that interpretation from Calvin today or argue that heliocentric theory is against the Bible today. However, somehow interpretation by recent tradition seems to carry sway in the Church - although many of the early Church fathers also believed the six days were God days and not solar days. I've never been able to see why this has become such a sticking point for us or why we think that longer periods of the days of creation go against the Bible. They simply do not.

Sorry for the ending this abruptly but I must go. Thanks for your input.

In Christ, Pat

[Bonky]

Hey again Bonkey,

 

I thought it might save us some time if I summarise my perspective on a couple of points we’ve discussed.

 

(A)

I have proposed that all historical claims are unfalsifiable.

You responded by claiming that Common Ancestry could be falsified by finding a rabbit in Precambrian rock.

 

My argument is that even if you found a rabbit in Precambrian rock, that fact would be insufficient to force a rejection of Common Ancestry; namely because there is always the logical possibility of the rabbit entering the rock after the rock had formed by some currently unknown, undescribed method. That is, we could always say, “Yes – we found a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock, No – we don’t know how it got there, But there remains the logical possibility that the rabbit entered the rock, subsequent to the rock’s formation, by some (yet to be determined) means”

 

Then I presented evidence of this logic being employed to account for pollen found in Precambrian rock.

- Yes – we found pollen fossils in Precambrian rock

OR “The rocks concerned are unquestionably ancient (Precambrian) … Yet standard palynological techniques recovered well-preserved fossil pollen from the samples”

- No – we don’t know how it got there

OR “by no conceivable means could the pollen (and spores) have entered the metamorphosed sediments from the outside”

- But there remains the logical possibility that the pollen entered the rock, subsequent to the rock’s formation, by some (yet to be determined) means

OR “it remains an intriguing geological mystery”

 

Now you have criticised the example, but what is required is that you explain how such a find would logically force the necessary rejection of Common Ancestry (i.e. falsify Common Ancestry). Without that explanation, Common Ancestry remains unfalsifiable.

The fossil example may have been a poor one I admit. In hindsight it may have been better to suggest common ancestry within primates being falsifiable via DNA analysis. If humans share common ancestry with primates then we should be more similar genetically than say other mammals. So the fossil example may have been a questionable choice, I do think there are things we could come across that would put common ancestry into question.

By the way, what is your take on endogenous retroviruses being shared between humans and other primates?

 

(B)

We are debating two versions of reality;

 

Faith premise 1: God has interacted with the universe in accordance with the Biblical account

Faith premise 2: No God has interacted with the universe

Rejection. Atheism is a response to a claim that there is a God. First this God would have to be described/defined, then sufficient evidence needs to be provided. We don't describe people who doubt the existence of bigfoot as having faith that bigfoot doesn't exist. That's silly.

 

- A model (including sub-models) of unobserved history has been formulated within the parameters of faith premise 1 (model 1)

- A model (including sub-models) of unobserved history has been formulated within the parameters of faith premise 2 (model 2)

 

- All of the currently available evidence can be rationally interpreted to conform to model 1

- All of the currently available evidence can be rationally interpreted to conform to model 2

 

- None of the historical claims underpinning model 1 have been scientifically observed

- None of the historical claims underpinning model 2 have been scientifically observed

 

- Therefore model 1 is logically unfalsifiable

- Therefore model 2 is logically unfalsifiable

 

Now advocates of model 2 claim that their model is the only scientifically valid model. Since the same logical methodology is applied to both models throughout, and since the only point of difference is the fundamental faith premises, I have to assume that this claim of exclusive validity is founded in faith, rather than objective scientific reasoning.

 

Hope this clears up my position a bit.

I don't have a problem that we have different starting points or presuppositions. I reject this "faith" argument you're trying to establish.

[enoob57]

I don't have a problem that we have different starting points or presuppositions. I reject this "faith" argument you're trying to establish.

Your refusal to reason in the light of truth is because your acceptance of the

lie that there is something that is not faith based. Any where in a belief system

everyone is of faith no matter what the faith is based on (lie or truth)... Love, Steven

[Bonky]

Your refusal to reason in the light of truth is because your acceptance of the

lie that there is something that is not faith based. Any where in a belief system

everyone is of faith no matter what the faith is based on (lie or truth)... Love, Steven

In my world view I allow any belief or position to be changed based on new evidence. Religious faith, as we've seen here, holds the position that there is holy scripture which can't be challenged. I personally reject that approach when examining claims or evaluating evidence. I know others are comfortable with it, but for me religious faith isn't appealing. I also don't hold the position that there isn't a supernatural realm or supernatural beings. I simply need to be convinced that if there are such things, how would we know. If there is a way we can know, I'm interested in the evidence.

[Tristen]

 

 

 

Can y'all PLEASE just quote what you are responding to???  Requoting a long, long series of posts every time is confusing and dissuades others from reading your posts (especially when posts are in quotaton marks; it's easier to use the 'quote' feature).  It works much better if you delete everything except what you wish to respond to before you post.  Just a suggestion.....but it makes it easier for everyone.   

Am I the only one here who thinks that a debate on evolution should have it own thread and not be integrated with a thread on the big bang? It appears to me that we have completely diverged from the named topic - I know this not the first time I have encountered this phenomena in my short stint but it does seem to be somewhat inappropriate, not to mention a very inefficient method on focusing on a single subject. Maybe we can just change the thread name to evolution since this is truly what is being debated? Sorry if I offend - it's just a suggestion.

In Christ, Pat

 

 

 

Hi Pat,

 

The Biblical creation account incorporates the creation of both the universe and life. The naturalistic models separate these into temporally disparate events. Since the same logic is used to justify both, and since it is this logic I am questioning, it shouldn’t matter whether we are dealing with Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang) or Common Ancestry.

 

Also, the two secular models are related. The history proposed by Standard Cosmology provides the massive time-frames required to make Common Ancestry plausible.

 

The Big Bang says the universe had a beginning and we have evidences that there was a great universal expansion. That is the same thing that Genesis maintains; "yes it had a beginning". It also follows many other Scriptures, such as the Lord stretched the heavens out - stretching and expansion being the same things. So I guess I fail to see how the evidence of "a big bang" so called - no scientist worth their salt calls it an explosion, it was an expansion and that expansion can be in the waves and ripples that permeate space. So I have yet to hear any Scripture that negates that. And I have not heard what logic determines the that the theory of evolution and the Big Bang evidence are linked. I myself do believe there was a beginning and the evidence of that is in much of what we call the Big Bang but I do not believe in evolution as Darwin defines it. Of course I do believe that we, whether passed from this life are still living when the Lord comes back will physically change our nature but that is by an act of the creator changing us from mere men to have bodies like Christ, the Son of Man, impervious to death and our spiritually new nature manifests itself in the physical.

in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."

-1Corinthians 15:52-54

In Christ, Pat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can y'all PLEASE just quote what you are responding to???  Requoting a long, long series of posts every time is confusing and dissuades others from reading your posts (especially when posts are in quotaton marks; it's easier to use the 'quote' feature).  It works much better if you delete everything except what you wish to respond to before you post.  Just a suggestion.....but it makes it easier for everyone.   

Am I the only one here who thinks that a debate on evolution should have it own thread and not be integrated with a thread on the big bang? It appears to me that we have completely diverged from the named topic - I know this not the first time I have encountered this phenomena in my short stint but it does seem to be somewhat inappropriate, not to mention a very inefficient method on focusing on a single subject. Maybe we can just change the thread name to evolution since this is truly what is being debated? Sorry if I offend - it's just a suggestion.

In Christ, Pat

 

 

 

Hi Pat,

 

The Biblical creation account incorporates the creation of both the universe and life. The naturalistic models separate these into temporally disparate events. Since the same logic is used to justify both, and since it is this logic I am questioning, it shouldn’t matter whether we are dealing with Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang) or Common Ancestry.

 

Also, the two secular models are related. The history proposed by Standard Cosmology provides the massive time-frames required to make Common Ancestry plausible.

 

Sorry, in my quick read I missed the fact that your problem with the Big Bang was not the evidential expansion of the universe but the massive amount of time in that expansion. Even without the Big Bang, however, we have stars that are millions and even billions of light years away from us and we know by the speed of light it actually has taken millions and even billions of years for that light to reach us. Are we also against that? I don't believe there is anything in Genesis which states a Christian must define the six days of creation as solar days, especially since the solar day was created by God until the 4th day. Throughout history some Christians have misinterpreted the Bible and things like heliocentric theory could have landed you in jail or left you forever an outcast from the Church. Even Biblical giants like Calvin were claiming that the sun revolved around the earth because it says so in the Bible. We don't use that interpretation from Calvin today or argue that heliocentric theory is against the Bible today. However, somehow interpretation by recent tradition seems to carry sway in the Church - although many of the early Church fathers also believed the six days were God days and not solar days. I've never been able to see why this has become such a sticking point for us or why we think that longer periods of the days of creation go against the Bible. They simply do not.

Sorry for the ending this abruptly but I must go. Thanks for your input.

In Christ, Pat

 

 

 

Hi Pat, you said “I have not heard what logic determines the that the theory of evolution and the Big Bang evidence are linked.”

 

I can think of at least two logical links; 1) The motivation of the naturalistic faith, applied to both of their models - to explain the origins of life and the universe without any involvement of a God. 2) The existence of an alternative perspective which describes the origin of life and the universe in the same context (i.e. the Genesis creation week). That is, these two events are intrinsically linked in the Genesis account. If we only consider the issue from one perspective, then we are failing to be objective.

 

 

 

“we have stars that are millions and even billions of light years away from us and we know by the speed of light it actually has taken millions and even billions of years for that light to reach us. Are we also against that?”

 

To be fair, that’s not how the distance of stars is determined. The only facts that we have are the photons of light which are recorded as they are detected by our instruments on (or around) earth. The rest is theoretical (interpretations and assumptions). By your model, we would have to assume that those photons have maintained a constant path and speed throughout their massive journey through space; not effected by any external forces (such as gravity – remembering that the current Standard Cosmology model incorporates a universe full of dark matter and its associated gravity). A common assumption of naturalistic models (called uniformitarianism) is that once we measure the current rates of a process, we can simply hit the reverse button to tell us what happened throughout millions and billions of years of history (i.e. history that was not actually observed). Furthermore, in order to determine distance, we don’t just need assumptions about the rate (e.g. speed of light), we also need to make assumptions about the starting point of the light – which could only ever be determined to any degree of certainty by travelling to the point of origin and making the necessary direct observations. Such large distances cannot be determined by any method without making massive assumptions.

 

The actual way these distances are determined is through a property of light called red-shift (it’s actually determined by gas/energy signatures – but I won’t go into too much detail at this stage). Basically, as a light source (e.g. galaxy) moves away from us, it is assumed that the Doppler Effect would stretch the light waves, pushing the light signature towards red in the light spectrum. Mathematically comparing the expected signals against the actual signals theoretically permits us to determine how far the light source is away, and how fast it is moving away from us. The assumption that the Doppler Effect is the only source of red-shift is becoming increasingly contested by new astronomical observations.

 

There are several creationist models. I am not aware of any that dispute the vast distances of stars and galaxies across the universe. My preferred model incorporates Time Dilation – a property of the universe implied by general relativity – that time is an actual dimension that is interwoven into space. Time proceeds differently at different points in space (mainly influenced by gravity). If, as the Bible states, and as you have acknowledged, God “stretched out the heavens”, then there is a range of possible implications for how time might be effected by that ‘stretching’ of space. If time is stretch along with space, then it is theoretically possible for the stretched parts of space to be much older than the space around the earth – even when both were created at the same time.

 

My main point is that all historical models incorporate assumptions (we are specifically talking about the history of light travelling through the universe). Which model we ultimately prefer is determined by the starting paradigm we have adopted.

 

 

 

“I don't believe there is anything in Genesis which states a Christian must define the six days of creation as solar days, especially since the solar day was created by God until the 4th day”

 

Using the term “solar days” somewhat stacks the deck of this argument. There are many contextual signals in the text indicating that the day was at the same time period we would call a day (although I am happy to discuss this further, these signals have been thoroughly addressed in other threads). Nevertheless, the concept of massively long-ages is not indicated in the text itself – such ideas must be read into the text based on information from outside of the text (e.g. some perceived obligation of allegiance to the popular long-ages paradigm).

 

 

 

“Throughout history some Christians have misinterpreted the Bible and things like heliocentric theory could have landed you in jail or left you forever an outcast from the Church”

 

Not “throughout history”, but primarily during a period of reign by a particular Catholic Pope (Pope Urban VIII) who permitted himself to be convinced that the Copernican (i.e. a Christian cleric from the 1400-1500s) theory of a heliocentric solar system, to be heresy.

 

 

 

“Even Biblical giants like Calvin were claiming that the sun revolved around the earth because it says so in the Bible”

 

Calvin is not a “Biblical giant” since he doesn’t appear in the Bible whatsoever.

 

The question you (and Calvin - allegedly) should have asked is, ‘does the Bible actually state that the earth moves around the sun, or has that concept been read into the text based on some misunderstood observation (e.g. like the accurate observation that the sun moves across the sky).

 

 

 

“We don't use that interpretation from Calvin today or argue that heliocentric theory is against the Bible today”

 

That’s because it isn’t “against the Bible”. I am not aware of Calvin’s arguments for a geocentric universe, but I am aware that he died before Copernicus released his observations. Since the Bible doesn’t state categorically which body revolves around which, Calvin was free to speculate based on what he read into the Bible – which I suspect was heavily influenced by the prevailing models of Aristotle and Ptolemy. Debate is permitted within the Christian paradigm, and given the available evidence of his time, Calvin probably had a perfectly rational argument supporting his position.

 

The Bible does call the Genesis days, “days” using the Hebrew word yom; with mornings and evenings. As with the English term day, yom can mean ages in certain contexts, but there are many better Hebrew words that could convey this concept. Yet there are no better words in Hebrew that could convey the concept of a literal day. Subsequent scriptures support this interpretation (see Exodus 20:11).

 

 

 

“I've never been able to see why this has become such a sticking point for us or why we think that longer periods of the days of creation go against the Bible”

 

It’s a “sticking point” for me because I am being asked to make the Bible say something that it doesn’t actually say, in order to conform it to highly speculative, unfalsifiable models of unobserved history; which were specifically formulated to explain the universe without God - when there is no objective scientific reason for me to distrust what the Bible actually says; without having to read any extraneous concepts into it. The popular propaganda implies that anyone with the gal to question the secular models is somehow scientifically ignorant – but that propaganda is not rationally justified.

[Tristen]

 

Hey again Bonkey,

 

I thought it might save us some time if I summarise my perspective on a couple of points we’ve discussed.

 

(A)

I have proposed that all historical claims are unfalsifiable.

You responded by claiming that Common Ancestry could be falsified by finding a rabbit in Precambrian rock.

 

My argument is that even if you found a rabbit in Precambrian rock, that fact would be insufficient to force a rejection of Common Ancestry; namely because there is always the logical possibility of the rabbit entering the rock after the rock had formed by some currently unknown, undescribed method. That is, we could always say, “Yes – we found a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock, No – we don’t know how it got there, But there remains the logical possibility that the rabbit entered the rock, subsequent to the rock’s formation, by some (yet to be determined) means”

 

Then I presented evidence of this logic being employed to account for pollen found in Precambrian rock.

- Yes – we found pollen fossils in Precambrian rock

OR “The rocks concerned are unquestionably ancient (Precambrian) … Yet standard palynological techniques recovered well-preserved fossil pollen from the samples”

- No – we don’t know how it got there

OR “by no conceivable means could the pollen (and spores) have entered the metamorphosed sediments from the outside”

- But there remains the logical possibility that the pollen entered the rock, subsequent to the rock’s formation, by some (yet to be determined) means

OR “it remains an intriguing geological mystery”

 

Now you have criticised the example, but what is required is that you explain how such a find would logically force the necessary rejection of Common Ancestry (i.e. falsify Common Ancestry). Without that explanation, Common Ancestry remains unfalsifiable.

The fossil example may have been a poor one I admit. In hindsight it may have been better to suggest common ancestry within primates being falsifiable via DNA analysis. If humans share common ancestry with primates then we should be more similar genetically than say other mammals. So the fossil example may have been a questionable choice, I do think there are things we could come across that would put common ancestry into question.

By the way, what is your take on endogenous retroviruses being shared between humans and other primates?

 

(B)

We are debating two versions of reality;

 

Faith premise 1: God has interacted with the universe in accordance with the Biblical account

Faith premise 2: No God has interacted with the universe

Rejection. Atheism is a response to a claim that there is a God. First this God would have to be described/defined, then sufficient evidence needs to be provided. We don't describe people who doubt the existence of bigfoot as having faith that bigfoot doesn't exist. That's silly.

 

- A model (including sub-models) of unobserved history has been formulated within the parameters of faith premise 1 (model 1)

- A model (including sub-models) of unobserved history has been formulated within the parameters of faith premise 2 (model 2)

 

- All of the currently available evidence can be rationally interpreted to conform to model 1

- All of the currently available evidence can be rationally interpreted to conform to model 2

 

- None of the historical claims underpinning model 1 have been scientifically observed

- None of the historical claims underpinning model 2 have been scientifically observed

 

- Therefore model 1 is logically unfalsifiable

- Therefore model 2 is logically unfalsifiable

 

Now advocates of model 2 claim that their model is the only scientifically valid model. Since the same logical methodology is applied to both models throughout, and since the only point of difference is the fundamental faith premises, I have to assume that this claim of exclusive validity is founded in faith, rather than objective scientific reasoning.

 

Hope this clears up my position a bit.

I don't have a problem that we have different starting points or presuppositions. I reject this "faith" argument you're trying to establish.

 

 

 

Hi Bonkey, You said, “If humans share common ancestry with primates then we should be more similar genetically than say other mammals”

 

But that’s only half of the Common Ancestry equation. It goes on to say; we find that humans have more genetic material in common with primates than other mammals, therefore that genetic material must have been inherited through a common ancestor. This rationale epitomizes the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.

 

 

 

“I do think there are things we could come across that would put common ancestry into question”

 

I agree – but nothing that could categorically falsify it to those who are determined that it is true.

 

 

 

“what is your take on endogenous retroviruses being shared between humans and other primates”

 

First I examine the relevant facts;

- Certain viruses can make additions to our DNA (the relevant implication of this fact is that if DNA is altered in a germ cell (sperm or egg), it can be inherited by offspring).

- Humans and primates (and others) share segments of non-coding DNA which are very similar to DNA commonly found in viruses.

 

Now, if I assume that all non-coding DNA is an evolutionary leftover (i.e. “junk DNA”), and I further assume that viruses must be the origin of these shared DNA segments in primates and humans, then it becomes incredulous that humans and primates would share the same viral segments; apart from inheritance through a common ancestor.

 

An updated fact;

- Most of the non-coding region of DNA has been found to be biologically active in cells. For example, some RNAs (transcribed DNA) can fold like proteins to perform gene regulatory functions. We don’t know what all of it does because this discovery is still quite recent (and no one ever thought to look before because of the evolutionary assumption that it was “junk”).

 

If non-coding, ‘endogenous retrovirus’ DNA is found to be functionally active, then as a Christian, I have no reason to presume these so-called “virus” segments are anything other than information originating in the mind of the Designer – just like protein coding DNA. Even before the discovery of functional, non-coding DNA, the term “endogenous retroviruses” was highly assumptive.

 

 

 

(B)

We are debating two versions of reality;

Faith premise 1: God has interacted with the universe in accordance with the Biblical account

Faith premise 2: No God has interacted with the universe

“Rejection. Atheism is a response to a claim that there is a God”

 

Yes, and that response takes the form ‘there is no God’ (or “nah-ah”).

 

 

 

“First this God would have to be described/defined, then sufficient evidence needs to be provided. We don't describe people who doubt the existence of bigfoot as having faith that bigfoot doesn't exist. That's silly.”

 

This is an increasingly common (and admittedly clever) strategy employed by atheists in an attempt to avoid having to provide a rational defence of their position.

 

The word atheism means ‘without God’ or ‘no God’. So an accurate summary of the atheist position would be;

“Atheists believe that no God exists”

Now most atheists detest this framing of their position because the phrase “Atheists believe” accurately reflects that atheism is premised on the unverifiable (and therefore atheistic confidence = faith). So we are compelled to massage the statement by moving the negation;

“Atheists don’t believe that God exists”

This statement is logically identical to the first statement, but the semantic switch makes it less adamant about the faith aspect of atheism. It’s good, but we can make it better by using a different negation;

“Atheists lack belief in the existence of God”

Perfect! – It’s the identical logical construct used in the first statement (so technically accurate), but the phrase “lack belief” can be used to portray atheism as a ‘lack of belief’, rather than a belief; and therefore exempt from any obligation to provide a rational defence. So now, only those whose positions can be described as belief are obligated to defend their position – but not atheists, since atheism is a ‘lack of belief’.

 

It’s brilliant. It’s almost a pity it doesn’t stand up to rational scrutiny.

 

Now back to reality - both theism and atheism make claims about what lies beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe (atheism claims nothing lies beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe, but it’s still a claim). Therefore both positions are equally obligated to provide a rational justification of their position. Though notably, if one side implies that only their perspective is valid, it is they who are more obligated to provide “sufficient evidence” of their claim. But the subjective nature of “sufficient evidence” renders the point redundant (and somewhat circular) – since evidence incorporates interpretation, and interpretation is influenced by faith paradigm. Who gets to decide what constitutes “sufficient evidence”?

 

 

 

“I don't have a problem that we have different starting points or presuppositions. I reject this "faith" argument you're trying to establish”

 

Well, I reject your rejection;) That’s because until you can verify that the universe has always proceeded independently of any supernatural intervention, your rejection has little in the way of rational substance.

[alphaparticle]

Tristen,

 

With regards to your post to me, I think it is the case that you misunderstand my intentions. I acknowledge it may be, and probably is, even, a matter of my not being particularly clearly in my thread. I simply wanted to express frustration and also, express for those who may be in a similar boat as me my veiws so they are aware there are others with similar struggles. It isn't my intention to suggest that everyone else is dumb. Your attempt to read between the lines in that was inaccurate.

 

To everyone, in general,

 

it is simply the case I often find it hard to be a believer and be in the groups that I am in. Maybe you find that frankly irrelevant to the topic, and I understand it if you do, but I think it is rather important that people know there are Christians out there who do not dismiss evolution, or the big bang, as they are the accepted scientific models by the vast majority of people in the relevant fields. I find it important to for certain believers and seekers to know this.

[Bonky]

Edited July 2, 2014 by Bonky

[Tristen]

Tristen,

 

With regards to your post to me, I think it is the case that you misunderstand my intentions. I acknowledge it may be, and probably is, even, a matter of my not being particularly clearly in my thread. I simply wanted to express frustration and also, express for those who may be in a similar boat as me my veiws so they are aware there are others with similar struggles. It isn't my intention to suggest that everyone else is dumb. Your attempt to read between the lines in that was inaccurate.

 

To everyone, in general,

 

it is simply the case I often find it hard to be a believer and be in the groups that I am in. Maybe you find that frankly irrelevant to the topic, and I understand it if you do, but I think it is rather important that people know there are Christians out there who do not dismiss evolution, or the big bang, as they are the accepted scientific models by the vast majority of people in the relevant fields. I find it important to for certain believers and seekers to know this.

 

 

Hi alphaparticle,

 

I think I have understood your position just fine. You disagree on a couple of issues with some Christians in your circle;

- You think that a consistent world-view can be maintained between the Bible, and secular historical models. The Christians around you disagree.

- You think that the issue is unimportant. The Christians around you disagree.

 

So it is likely that you are being challenged on your position – which is a cause of frustration for you.

 

I still think the inconsistency lies with you. Since you consider the issue to be unimportant, you are expecting these Christians to act as if they consider the issue to be unimportant.

 

If I might be so bold as to offer advice – You are not obligated to engage on this issue. Ideally, you would be secure enough to be able to get amongst it on any issue, but since, by your own admission, you are becoming frustrated, you could just say when challenged “I have made a decision that I’m going to leave this issue to God’s correction (if He deems it necessary) because it has become a source of distraction and frustration for me” (or some other polite way of saying “This conversation isn’t going to happen”). If they continue to push, then you can say “So what you are saying is that you have no confidence in God’s capacity to correct me?”

 

 

 

“I think it is rather important that people know there are Christians out there who do not dismiss evolution, or the big bang, as they are the accepted scientific models by the vast majority of people in the relevant fields”

 

Ultimately, if you know the Lord, then God is able to correct whichever of us needs it as He deems fit; assuming we are open to correction. However, statements like the one above are a source of sincere concern because they indicate a readiness to accept the world’s story over the Biblical account – without due consideration for the logic employed.

 

For example, creationists do not “dismiss” anything. We disagree that Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology represent the only rational interpretations of the available evidence, and we disagree with the scientifically (and logically) unjustified levels of confidence often expressed in these models, and we disagree with the common claim that our disagreement demonstrates us to be, in any respect, scientifically ignorant. Our disagreement and right to scrutinise any scientific claim is explicitly permitted under the scientific method.

 

Acceptance by the scientific community has never been a legitimate source of scientific confidence – especially when we are dealing with historical models of unobserved claims. Logic simply doesn’t permit confidence from this source. It combines the two logical fallacies Appeal to Consensus and Appeal to Authority.

 

 

 

“I find it important to for certain believers and seekers to know this”

 

I’m not sure why. Presumably you think that by conceding these points we make the gospel more appealing to outsiders.

 

I’m not trying to negate your right to an opinion. My disagreement is based on the experience that I have never seen anyone impressed by an attempt to combine the Bible with secular models. Most people have recognised that these secular models are formulated with the intention of explaining reality without God. So they respond by either patronising us as having a half-truth (i.e. we are almost to a point where we’ve figured out that there is no need for God), or by criticising out capacity for reason. Richard Dawkins has demonstrated both of these strategies; in one sense describing Christians as “otherwise sane” or “They half-believe in the Bible but how do they decide which parts to believe literally and which parts are just allegorical?”; yet in another context he describes the attempted combination of secular models with the Bible as “Barking mad”.

 

Since these represent the usual responses (at least in my experience), even if you disagree with us, you must be able to understand why we consider these issues important, and why we feel obligated to passionately defend our position. I empathise that discussing these issues with Christians makes you feel isolated and frustrated – that should not be the case. Christian fellowship should provide a place where we feel safe discussing any issue.

[Tristen]

 

Hi Bonkey, You said, “If humans share common ancestry with primates then we should be more similar genetically than say other mammals”

 

But that’s only half of the Common Ancestry equation. It goes on to say; we find that humans have more genetic material in common with primates than other mammals, therefore that genetic material must have been inherited through a common ancestor. This rationale epitomizes the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.

Affirming the consequent occurs only when such affirmation is said to provide proof for the antecedent. As you've stated yourself, science isn't out to prove anything. Science is about providing evidence to establish its claims with varying degrees of certainty, not proof that eliminates all uncertainty.

We have only one natural mechanism for various genetic markers to be handed down to future generations...genetic inheritance. Now you'll argue that a "Designer" placed these similarities there, but using Occam's razor I can easily choose common ancestry as the best explanation.

 

First I examine the relevant facts;

- Certain viruses can make additions to our DNA (the relevant implication of this fact is that if DNA is altered in a germ cell (sperm or egg), it can be inherited by offspring).

- Humans and primates (and others) share segments of non-coding DNA which are very similar to DNA commonly found in viruses.

 

Now, if I assume that all non-coding DNA is an evolutionary leftover (i.e. “junk DNA”), and I further assume that viruses must be the origin of these shared DNA segments in primates and humans, then it becomes incredulous that humans and primates would share the same viral segments; apart from inheritance through a common ancestor.

 

An updated fact;

- Most of the non-coding region of DNA has been found to be biologically active in cells. For example, some RNAs (transcribed DNA) can fold like proteins to perform gene regulatory functions. We don’t know what all of it does because this discovery is still quite recent (and no one ever thought to look before because of the evolutionary assumption that it was “junk”).

 

If non-coding, ‘endogenous retrovirus’ DNA is found to be functionally active, then as a Christian, I have no reason to presume these so-called “virus” segments are anything other than information originating in the mind of the Designer – just like protein coding DNA. Even before the discovery of functional, non-coding DNA, the term “endogenous retroviruses” was highly assumptive.

Isn't it true that some ERV's are found in the exact same location of the genome? And yet we don't share these segments with all of "creation" but with the very animals that "common descent" would predict. Once again, it's not about proof, but just the idea that evolution [in my opinion] offers a better explanation. Intelligent design advocates, bring in a bigger mystery to try to account for this.

I've done a little research and I'm trying to find examples of other organisms that we share ERV's with. If it's only primates, that to me is support for common ancestry. Hearing people say "that's just how the designer wanted it" isn't an impressive explanation.

 

 

 

Yes, and that response takes the form ‘there is no God’ (or “nah-ah”).

Are you asking me or telling me what my response is? I'm not convinced that there's any God, but I am absolutely open to the possibility.

 

 

 

This is an increasingly common (and admittedly clever) strategy employed by atheists in an attempt to avoid having to provide a rational defence of their position.

I don't have the burden of proof, so what would I be defending? You'd be surprised the blank stares I get when asking people to define a "spirit" or "soul" let alone God. I think it's a relevant question.

 

 

The word atheism means ‘without God’ or ‘no God’. So an accurate summary of the atheist position would be;

“Atheists believe that no God exists”

Now most atheists detest this framing of their position because the phrase “Atheists believe” accurately reflects that atheism is premised on the unverifiable (and therefore atheistic confidence = faith). So we are compelled to massage the statement by moving the negation;

“Atheists don’t believe that God exists”

This statement is logically identical to the first statement, but the semantic switch makes it less adamant about the faith aspect of atheism. It’s good, but we can make it better by using a different negation;

“Atheists lack belief in the existence of God”

Perfect! – It’s the identical logical construct used in the first statement (so technically accurate), but the phrase “lack belief” can be used to portray atheism as a ‘lack of belief’, rather than a belief; and therefore exempt from any obligation to provide a rational defence. So now, only those whose positions can be described as belief are obligated to defend their position – but not atheists, since atheism is a ‘lack of belief’.

 

It’s brilliant. It’s almost a pity it doesn’t stand up to rational scrutiny.

 

Now back to reality - both theism and atheism make claims about what lies beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe (atheism claims nothing lies beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe, but it’s still a claim).

Wrong, atheism addresses a truth claim that a God or Gods exist. It says NOTHING about spirits, ghouls, ghosts, alternate realities, etc etc. I can see that you desperately want atheism to have a burden of proof. Do you ask those who don't believe in bigfoot to defend their lack of belief? Or is this just a pet requirement for atheists?

 

Therefore both positions are equally obligated to provide a rational justification of their position. Though notably, if one side implies that only their perspective is valid, it is they who are more obligated to provide “sufficient evidence” of their claim. But the subjective nature of “sufficient evidence” renders the point redundant (and somewhat circular) – since evidence incorporates interpretation, and interpretation is influenced by faith paradigm. Who gets to decide what constitutes “sufficient evidence”?

Who gets to decide? The person assessing the evidence, who else?

 

 

 

“I don't have a problem that we have different starting points or presuppositions. I reject this "faith" argument you're trying to establish”

 

Well, I reject your rejection;) That’s because until you can verify that the universe has always proceeded independently of any supernatural intervention, your rejection has little in the way of rational substance.

As I stated in response to enoob:

"In my world view I allow any belief or position to be changed based on new evidence. Religious faith, as we've seen here, holds the position that there is holy scripture which can't be challenged. I personally reject that approach when examining claims or evaluating evidence. I know others are comfortable with it, but for me religious faith isn't appealing. I also don't hold the position that there isn't a supernatural realm or supernatural beings. I simply need to be convinced that if there are such things, how would we know. If there is a way we can know, I'm interested in the evidence."

I don't exclude the possibility of supernatural intervention, where you differ from me is you ASSUME it and have theological implications if you don't.

 

 

 

Hey Bonky, you said “Affirming the consequent occurs only when such affirmation is said to provide proof for the antecedent”

 

This is incorrect. Any level of confidence in the antecedent requires the logic gap to be filled with the same assumption.

 

 

 

“As you've stated yourself, science isn't out to prove anything”

 

My point is that the entity “proof” as you are using it, doesn’t actually exist in any legitimate sense. You are miss-defining “proof” to mean some form of absolute verification (i.e. in a pseudo-scientific sense) – a definition which cannot be logically sustained. So using “proof” this way to support your definition of Affirming the Consequent is also illegitimate.

 

 

 

“We have only one natural mechanism for various genetic markers to be handed down to future generations...genetic inheritance”

 

Actually, prokaryotes and viruses can employ various horizontal gene transfer mechanisms (which becomes very problematic when they are used to support inheritance models like Common Ancestry).

 

 

 

“Now you'll argue that a "Designer" placed these similarities there, but using Occam's razor I can easily choose common ancestry as the best explanation”

 

Since you have left this as an Unsupported Assertion, I’ll have to make assumptions about what you mean based on my own previous conversations.

 

Occam’s Razor states that “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”. In application, it means that we should prefer the argument with the least entities (logical steps) between premise and conclusion – over those arguments which require more complexity.  Now atheists sometimes try to suggest that God qualifies as an extra logical entity – but that is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the theory. God is the premise of our argument – not an entity between the premise and conclusion. It’s easy to see why this might appeal to an atheist; since removing the premise removes the entire foundation of an argument. But this was never the purpose of Occam’s Razor. Some have subsequently attempted to redefine these "entities" as natural observations. I assume I don't have to explain to you why I consider this a biased redefinition.

 

I would suggest that the theistic explanation is far more parsimonious than the secular explanation. In fact, our opponents often ridicule our position for its simplicity; mischaracterizing it as “Godidit”.

 

Nevertheless, Occam’s Razor is not a law of logic. It’s a good rule-of-thumb, but there always remains the possibility that the more complex explanation represents the truth.

 

 

 

“Isn't it true that some ERV's are found in the exact same location of the genome? And yet we don't share these segments with all of "creation" but with the very animals that "common descent" would predict”

 

If these genetic segments are biologically functional, then their existence is no more predicted by common descent, than by design. In both systems, similar organisms are expected to have similar information enabling them to fill similar habitat niches.

 

 

 

“it's not about proof, but just the idea that evolution [in my opinion] offers a better explanation”

 

Whilst your conclusion is subjective, you are now employing the correct amount of measured language. It is my opinion that Biblical creation offers a better explanation of the history of life.

 

 

 

“Intelligent design advocates, bring in a bigger mystery to try to account for this”

 

Before addressing this point, I think it’s important to differentiate between creationism and Intelligent Design. ID and creationism are represented by different people in different organizations with no formal affiliation (but with some conceptual overlap).

 

I don’t know what the big “mystery” is. We believe that God created life in all its complexity. You believe that complex life arose through a series of natural processes.

 

 

 

“I've done a little research and I'm trying to find examples of other organisms that we share ERV's with. If it's only primates, that to me is support for common ancestry”

 

- only if you assume them to be retrovirus fragment inserts. Otherwise they no more support Common Ancestry than sharing protein coding genes.

 

 

 

that response takes the form ‘there is no God’

“Are you asking me or telling me what my response is?”

 

I am defining true atheism.

 

 

 

“I'm not convinced that there's any God, but I am absolutely open to the possibility”

 

Then you are somewhat agnostic - though your expressed naturalistic preferences would make you some kind of hybrid – I’ve heard the term ag-atheist used. A true agnostic recognises that both atheistic and theistic claims are equally unverifiable.

 

 

 

both theism and atheism make claims about what lies beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe (atheism claims nothing lies beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe, but it’s still a claim).

“Wrong, atheism addresses a truth claim that a God or Gods exist. It says NOTHING about spirits, ghouls, ghosts, alternate realities, etc etc.”

 

Yes – historically, atheism is an enlightenment response to Christianity; and implied a rejection of all Biblical supernatural claims. Our arguments have since become more sophisticated so that we now incorporate philosophical terms such as naturalism and materialism to account for the shortfall in the original definition.

 

But I am happy to restate;

Both theism and atheism make claims about what lies beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe (atheism claims that there is no God beyond the boundaries of the physically observed universe, but it’s still a claim).

 

 

 

“I can see that you desperately want atheism to have a burden of proof”

 

Everyone who makes a claim is responsible to provide an account of their position. I think it is you who is desperate to avoid having to provide an account of your position. In doing so, you are trying to stack the deck of the conversation so that only the religious position is subject to scrutiny.

 

 

 

“Do you ask those who don't believe in bigfoot to defend their lack of belief?”

 

If they are engaging in a debate on the subject, then yes – they are making a claim, and therefore obligated to give an account of their position. No objective process would only permit the scrutiny of only one side of an argument. You can’t have one party taking pot shots at their opponents, but refusing to defend their position; claiming immunity from such scrutiny.

 

 

 

“Or is this just a pet requirement for atheists?”

 

It applies to anyone making a claim (including, but not limited to atheists).

 

 

 

Therefore both positions are equally obligated to provide a rational justification of their position. Though notably, if one side implies that only their perspective is valid, it is they who are more obligated to provide “sufficient evidence” of their claim. But the subjective nature of “sufficient evidence” renders the point redundant (and somewhat circular) – since evidence incorporates interpretation, and interpretation is influenced by faith paradigm. Who gets to decide what constitutes “sufficient evidence”?

“Who gets to decide? The person assessing the evidence, who else?”

 

So there is no objective standard constituting “sufficient evidence”? Therefore the concept of “sufficient evidence” is meaningless in a context where everyone is influenced by unverifiable faith presupposition.

 

 

 

“In my world view I allow any belief or position to be changed based on new evidence”

 

But this strategy is also meaningless in a context where;

- No naturally observable fact can independently speak to what lies beyond the boundaries of the universe or what occurred the past (beyond its own existence) – rendering all past claims and supernatural claims to be logically unfalsifiable.

- Evidence incorporates interpretation; a highly subjective process that is influenced by pre-existing logical frameworks (or faith paradigms).

- There are conflicting interpretations of the facts conforming to conflicting models of reality.

 

So it’s not just about “new evidence” but, as the previous question required, “sufficient evidence” – but what does that mean? It’s unspecific, non-committal platitude. In reality, the evidence has (at least) two explanations and you will choose the one that best confirms your currently preferred stance (as will I).

 

 

 

“Religious faith, as we've seen here, holds the position that there is holy scripture which can't be challenged. I personally reject that approach when examining claims or evaluating evidence”

 

And the secular approach holds the position that naturalism can’t be challenged. Both paradigms have parameters. So you don’t reject having parameters. You simply prefer the paradigm with the parameters that conform to your current faith perspective.

 

 

 

“I don't exclude the possibility of supernatural intervention, where you differ from me is you ASSUME it and have theological implications if you don't”

 

Except by your own argument, you will “ASSUME” no supernatural intervention until such a time as you encounter some mysterious entity called “sufficient evidence” – a logical strategy which I have above demonstrated to be specious.