Evolution Debate

[noguru]

1. There is no evidence that the authors of the Old Testament were part of the same oral society.

2. If people wrote letters to one another then the society would not have been an oral one.

3. The books of the Old Testament were written over a period of at least a thousand years.

4. There is no evidence that the authors knew one another or had access to the parchments of the other author.

5. The stories do have different points of view (as do the Gospels, written far more recently).

6. The consistency of the ideas in these different books by different authors in different eras is unprecedented in the history of literature. Normally different cultures as well as different eras have differing ideas. The culture of today has different ideas from the culture of only 100 years ago.

However, I do realize that you have already made up your mind and will not change it regardless of the facts.

I write only because some readers may still have open minds, and thus may be able to make a judgment based on the facts of the matter.

Bob, I do agree that the ideas in the OT are very consistent. I am not sure how consistent in relationship to other religious texts, because I have not studied other texts as much as the OT. I do think Highline has a point in that the culture that started with Adam was consistently surrounded by and influenced by the first to the last writings in the OT for the thousand years of its history. Whether that be through reading the texts or hearing oral citings of the text.

I think Highline's point about the oral tradition is based on the assumption that most people back then were illiterate. Yes, some of the upper echelon people of society did write to one another and read historical and contemporary documents. However, this does not change the fact that most of the evidence we have points to a society or culture that was majoritavely illiterate, hence the oral tradition.

 

[bob b]

I already addressed that Bob.

And his comments are quite different than yours. You claimed that the fossil record proves that evolution is false. I pointed out that the fossil record is just one of the many evidences that support it. I asked you to explain your conclusion that fossil record is evidence against evolution and evidence for YECism.

The fossil record is being discussed in the detail the subject deserves in another thread. You have provided no detail whatsoever except to say that the fossil record provides evidence to support it. In contrast I have offered the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion. Again. Please use the "Fossil Record" thread if you want to seriously debate this issue.

You did not do this and your comments show a fundamental misunderstanding or at worst a misrepresentation regarding the evidence and the science around it.

I would think such serious charges require something more than what you have provided so far. You wouldn't be engaging in the "Shoot the Messenger" tactic by any chance would you, instead of sticking to evidences?

When I corrected Mr Jack he explained which aspects he felt were "proven" via human observation. Those aspect include only what you would term as micro-evolution or adaption. Your use of the term proven is just a bluff to make your case seem more robust. Mr Jack admitted that macro-evolution or as you would call it "bacteria to ballerina" evolution has not been directly observed. However, he did point out that the evidence we have makes that explanation a more robust argument than the arguments and evidence used in many court cases.

A court would properly throw out any evidence that was based on the argument used by evolutionists to support macroevolution, namely, demanding that anyone who is skeptical tell them "so please present evidence why we can't extrapolate small changes that we can see to the ones we can't possibly see because they take too long?"

In case you failed to read it, I just finished today (a few posts back) posting a long description of the disingenuous tactic evolutionists use to shift the burden of proof from themselves to anyone who questions the absurd idea that all life descended from a primitive hypothetical protocell. Apparently we must present proof that this couldn't happen instead of them having to show some logical reasoning and evidence that it did.

So now we have two deceptive tactics that evolutionists use in debating, (1) Shoot the messenger and (2) Shift the burden of proof from the one presenting a theory to the one challenging the theory. There are of course many more such deceptive tactics and I will shortly post the next one in the long series of them.

 

[noguru]

The fossil record is being discussed in the detail the subject deserves in another thread. You have provided no detail whatsoever except to say that the fossil record provides evidence to support it. In contrast I have offered the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion. Again. Please use the "Fossil Record" thread if you want to seriously debate this issue.



I would think such serious charges require something more than what you have provided so far. You wouldn't be engaging in the "Shoot the Messenger" tactic by any chance would you, instead of sticking to evidences?



A court would properly throw out any evidence that was based on the argument used by evolutionists to support macroevolution, namely, demanding that anyone who is skeptical tell them "so please present evidence why we can't extrapolate small changes that we can see to the ones we can't possibly see because they take too long?"

In case you failed to read it, I just finished today (a few posts back) posting a long description of the disingenuous tactic evolutionists use to shift the burden of proof from themselves to anyone who questions the absurd idea that all life descended from a primitive hypothetical protocell. Apparently we must present proof that this couldn't happen instead of them having to show some logical reasoning and evidence that it did.

So now we have two deceptive tactics that evolutionists use in debating, (1) Shoot the messenger and (2) Shift the burden of proof from the one presenting a theory to the one challenging the theory. There are of course many more such deceptive tactics and I will shortly post the next one in the long series of them.

So you say Bob. However, the evidence does not back up your claim.

We are both presenting theories, are we not. You are deceptive because you do not hold up your own theory to the critical analyses that use for the naturalistic explanation. This is above and beyond all of the other nit-picking complaints that you have, the most disingenous and intellectually dishonest tactics that I have witnessed. I have presented the evidence that the scientific community has compiled many time to you. You simply use you strategy of plausible deniability.

At any rate, how can you expect to offer a competing model for the naturalistic model if you are so secretive about your model. You should be glad to demonstrate its explanatory strength. Instead you just piss and moan at how unfair those "evilutionists" are. Then start another thread criticizing the naturalistic model without shinning that light of reason on your own model.

At this point I am tired of your tactics and I have to go to work. Have a nice night Bob. :wave2:

 

[koban]

1. There is no evidence that the authors of the Old Testament were part of the same oral society.

2. If people wrote letters to one another then the society would not have been an oral one.

3. The books of the Old Testament were written over a period of at least a thousand years.

4. There is no evidence that the authors knew one another or had access to the parchments of the other author.

5. The stories do have different points of view (as do the Gospels, written far more recently).

6. The consistency of the ideas in these different books by different authors in different eras is unprecedented in the history of literature. Normally different cultures as well as different eras have differing ideas. The culture of today has different ideas from the culture of only 100 years ago.

However, I do realize that you have already made up your mind and will not change it regardless of the facts.

I write only because some readers may still have open minds, and thus may be able to make a judgment based on the facts of the matter.

Bob - when do you think the Hebrew scriptures coalesced and what was the process?

 

[No Worries]

One must note in response to bob's thread remarking on the consistency of the OT that the writing styles vary. Not highlighting different authors but a mark up in awareness. Julian Jaynes noted in 1976 that uber-consciousness began to assert itself with the dawning of increased social complexity. Man needed to empathise more and so his conscious mind developed. This is noted in a turn around in approach according to the times current with ecclestiases. It is also the time of the first noted suicide, a characteristic side effect of developed self awareness. Similiar, but earlier, passages of development are noted in cave paintings. From simple snapshots of history evolving into story telling episodes, a development of the human mind. Fast forwarding into the old testament similiar developments can be seen. The development of Satan's characteristics of that in Job to later on when he takes on a different persona. In the psychiatric/psychological world this has grown in support. Initial Jaynes received little recognition, nowadays he holds the majority of support.

In short the style of writing changes in the way people are perceived as understanding and expressing themselves. The earlier writers wrote with a certain perspective, the later wrote with an entirely different one. One that earlier humans had not yet developed. And so to say that the writings are divine is to say that the authors developed as humans did, suggesting that such writings are not divinely influenced, and even if they are to be considered so, the human witnesses were not capable of communicating it across.

Either the scriptures are not divinely conceived OR man is seen to evolve.

In this sense the OT supports evolution.

 

[bob b]

Bob, I do agree that the ideas in the OT are very consistent. I am not sure how consistent in relationship to other religious texts, because I have not studied other texts as much as the OT. I do think Highline has a point in that the culture that started with Adam was consistently surrounded by and influenced by the first to the last writings in the OT for the thousand years of its history. Whether that be through reading the texts or hearing oral citings of the text.I think Highline's point about the oral tradition is based on the assumption that most people back then were illiterate.

The "oral tradition" idea was an outgrowth of 19th century thinking that was still being taught when I was in my youth. It said essentially that "Moses could not have written the Torah because writing had not been invented yet".

But within a few years there were great discoveries by archeologists which pushed the date of first writing back thousands of years before Moses. Yet the "oral tradition" idea still hangs on and is popularized heavily today because it fits the general pattern of "progress" and "primitive man" which is so compatible with the evolutionary hypothesis.

Yes, some of the upper echelon people of society did write to one another and read historical and contemporary documents. However, this does not change the fact that most of the evidence we have points to a society or culture that was majoritavely illiterate, hence the oral tradition.

Even if the majority of the society was illiterate, that is immaterial, because it would be the literate whose ideas would be passed on to future generations, not those of the illiterate. The "oral tradition" idea became obsolete as soon as it was discovered that writing was not a recent invention as previously thought. You and others would be wise to drop your support for this "dead horse".

 

[bob b]

One must note in response to bob's thread remarking on the consistency of the OT that the writing styles vary. Not highlighting different authors but a mark up in awareness. Julian Jaynes noted in 1976 that uber-consciousness began to assert itself with the dawning of increased social complexity. Man needed to empathise more and so his conscious mind developed. This is noted in a turn around in approach according to the times current with ecclestiases. It is also the time of the first noted suicide, a characteristic side effect of developed self awareness. Similiar, but earlier, passages of development are noted in cave paintings. From simple snapshots of history evolving into story telling episodes, a development of the human mind. Fast forwarding into the old testament similiar developments can be seen. The development of Satan's characteristics of that in Job to later on when he takes on a different persona. In the psychiatric/psychological world this has grown in support. Initial Jaynes received little recognition, nowadays he holds the majority of support.

In short the style of writing changes in the way people are perceived as understanding and expressing themselves. The earlier writers wrote with a certain perspective, the later wrote with an entirely different one. One that earlier humans had not yet developed. And so to say that the writings are divine is to say that the authors developed as humans did, suggesting that such writings are not divinely influenced, and even if they are to be considered so, the human witnesses were not capable of communicating it across.

Either the scriptures are not divinely conceived OR man is seen to evolve.

In this sense the OT supports evolution.

There are several things regarding your posting that seem speculative to me. For example:

1. Stylistic writing - are you assuming that all writers in a particular era write with the same consistent style?

2. Isn't it true that some of the authors had different positions in society than others?

3. Did I say that the writings were divine? How would that work considering that the writers were humans?

4. Wouldn't it more reasonable to consider that the Divine would inspire ideas rather than styles?

5. There appear to be rather modern ideas in the scriptures, something that would be hard for people of the past to do. For example: [1] expansion of the heavens, [2] circulation of the oceans, [3] intricate formation in the womb, [4] importance of inheritance (Noah's was perfect), [5] a revolving Earth, etc. Others have developed dozens if not hundreds more such examples.

What does it take to convince a skeptic that there was something strange and unique going on with these writings ranging in authorship from Kings to fishermen to sheep herders and covering a time span over a thousand years?

No wonder Jesus marvelled at those who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel !!

 

[No Worries]

There are several things regarding your posting that seem speculative to me. For example:

1. Stylistic writing - are you assuming that all writers in a particular era write with the same consistent style?

2. Isn't it true that some of the authors had different positions in society than others?

3. Did I say that the writings were divine? How would that work considering that the writers were humans?

4. Wouldn't it more reasonable to consider that the Divine would inspire ideas rather than styles?

5. There appear to be rather modern ideas in the scriptures, something that would be hard for people of the past to do. For example: [1] expansion of the heavens, [2] circulation of the oceans, [3] intricate formation in the womb, [4] importance of inheritance (Noah's was perfect), [5] a revolving Earth, etc. Others have developed dozens if not hundreds more such examples.

What does it take to convince a skeptic that there was something strange and unique going on with these writings ranging in authorship from Kings to fishermen to sheep herders and covering a time span over a thousand years?

No wonder Jesus marvelled at those who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel !!

By style it is meant, and clearly stated, that the authors wrote not in different types of language or personallity but they were displaying different progressive levels of human awareness and interaction. Think of it in colours. The first could only see red so to him describing something 'blue' would just be another shade of red. The second could see red and blue, so described both. The third would then see red, blue and green. The earlier authors could not express certain things, it was written as they could only see shades of one colour. There is an evolved pattern of higher awareness and morality. Turn a blind eye to it if you want but psychologists and psychiatrists have readily acknowledged it in the main.

If you read into it it also explains the evolving religion. Hezekiah was the one that truly ent out and set one God and this is explained in pattern with the breakdown of the consciousness of the bicameral mind that is shown to pre-exist.

By the divine inspiring ideas would fall on death ears. How do you describe blue to somebody that can only see, and has only ever seen, red.

Station, origin or education of the author is neither here nor there. That is irrelevant to the argument. The intial point remains:

Either the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired OR man is seen to evolve.

Choose.

 

[noguru]

The "oral tradition" idea was an outgrowth of 19th century thinking that was still being taught when I was in my youth. It said essentially that "Moses could not have written the Torah because writing had not been invented yet".

I never assumed that Moses couldn't write. In fact I assumed that he was literate. After all he was raised as part of the pharoahs court. I always thought writing went back to at least 6,000 years.

But within a few years there were great discoveries by archeologists which pushed the date of first writing back thousands of years before Moses. Yet the "oral tradition" idea still hangs on and is popularized heavily today because it fits the general pattern of "progress" and "primitive man" which is so compatible with the evolutionary hypothesis.

The oral tradition I was speaking of is only in relationship to the discontinuous nature that you stressed regarding the writers of the Bible. IOW, even if there was a discontinuous connection of those who wrote the Bible, this would have been connected by the illiterate masses that spread these ideas from place to place and nation to naiton.

Even if the majority of the society was illiterate, that is immaterial, because it would be the literate whose ideas would be passed on to future generations, not those of the illiterate. The "oral tradition" idea became obsolete as soon as it was discovered that writing was not a recent invention as previously thought. You and others would be wise to drop your support for this "dead horse".

No it is not immaterial in regard to the point I was making. You misinterpreted what I was saying, yet again. I guess old habits die hard.

 

[bob b]

I never assumed that Moses couldn't write. In fact I assumed that he was literate. After all he was raised as part of the pharoahs court. I always thought writing went back to at least 6,000 years.

So what. As soon as the archeologists discovered that writing predated Moses, that knowledge became generally known. Oddly, the idea that the books in the Bible were based on stories passed down orally persisted, probably because of the growing belief in evolution with the implication that earlier people were primitive, not like us moderns.

The oral tradition I was speaking of is only in relationship to the discontinuous nature that you stressed regarding the writers of the Bible. IOW, even if there was a discontinuous connection of those who wrote the Bible, this would have been connected by the illiterate masses that spread these ideas from place to place and nation to naiton.

So the illiterate masses were the ones that God inspired and should properly be credited as the writers of the stories instead of the authors who actually wrote them down?

No it is not immaterial in regard to the point I was making. You misinterpreted what I was saying, yet again. I guess old habits die hard.

You said that it was important to note that most of the society was not literate. I said that this was immaterial unless you believed that the illiterate are the ones which pass stories down instead of the literate.

But your logic would not make sense in explaining the Bible unless you would then conclude that stories passed down orally by the illiterate would have some value to us who read them today. You can't have it both ways, because it would be far more difficult to believe that cohesive and God-breathed books would emerge by way of a process of being passed down through oral tradition of illiterate masses as opposed to inspiration by God to individuals who were capable of writing inspired thoughts down so that this inspiration could be transmitted faithfully down through the ages.

 

[bob b]

By style it is meant, and clearly stated, that the authors wrote not in different types of language or personallity but they were displaying different progressive levels of human awareness and interaction. Think of it in colours. The first could only see red so to him describing something 'blue' would just be another shade of red. The second could see red and blue, so described both. The third would then see red, blue and green. The earlier authors could not express certain things, it was written as they could only see shades of one colour. There is an evolved pattern of higher awareness and morality. Turn a blind eye to it if you want but psychologists and psychiatrists have readily acknowledged it in the main.

If you read into it it also explains the evolving religion. Hezekiah was the one that truly ent out and set one God and this is explained in pattern with the breakdown of the consciousness of the bicameral mind that is shown to pre-exist.

By the divine inspiring ideas would fall on death ears. How do you describe blue to somebody that can only see, and has only ever seen, red.

You take the speculations of men (like psychologists and psychiatrists ) way too seriously.

I will admit that in this regard it helps that I am old enough to remember the writings of other generations and hence can note that ideas so speculative and poorly supported by evidence (e.g. Freud and Jung) tend to come and go with the tides.

Station, origin or education of the author is neither here nor there. That is irrelevant to the argument. The intial point remains:

Either the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired OR man is seen to evolve.

Choose.

First let me analyze the choices you gave me.

#1) the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired

#2) man is seen to evolve

Hmm. Wait a minute. Are these the only two choices?

 

[noguru]

So what. As soon as the archeologists discovered that writing predated Moses, that knowledge became generally known. Oddly, the idea that the books in the Bible were based on stories passed down orally persisted, probably because of the growing belief in evolution with the implication that earlier people were primitive, not like us moderns.

I don't think it had anything to do with evolution. But like you said this concept is false and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

So the illiterate masses were the ones that God inspired and should properly be credited as the writers of the stories instead of the authors who actually wrote them down?

No Bob, you are missing the point. The literate upper echelon authored these writings since they were the only ones capable of writing. Some of the revelations probably came from these literate people. Some of the revelations might have come through illiterate people. Are you claiming that God only revealed himself through inspiration to literate people? Because, I am not claiming that he favored either group. I am simply pointing out that those stories could have only been written down by literate people. We don't know if all the stories originated with the literate people, we only know that they must have been written down by literate people.

Also and more importantly, I am pointing out that the people who could not read spread these stories, whether they originated from illiterate or literate sources, by word of mouth. Once the stories were written down they were most likely also told to the illiterate masses. The illiterate masses together with the discontinuous literate elite would have in effect created an unbroken connection that would have facilitated the consistency of the OT as a whole. IOW, the verbal exchanges would have connected the dots between the discontinuous literate authors. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

You said that it was important to note that most of the society was not literate. I said that this was immaterial unless you believed that the illiterate are the ones which pass stories down instead of the literate.

I am saying that both groups had a part in it. But again you seem to be missing the point. The illiterate masses were certainly involved with and in the traditions of the OT. How can you claim that they were not?

But your logic would not make sense in explaining the Bible unless you would then conclude that stories passed down orally by the illiterate would have some value to us who read them today. You can't have it both ways, because it would be far more difficult to believe that cohesive and God-breathed books would emerge by way of a process of being passed down through oral tradition of illiterate masses as opposed to inspiration by God to individuals who were capable of writing inspired thoughts down so that this inspiration could be transmitted faithfully down through the ages.

Bob just like with most societies, both parties had a hand in it. I am saying that most likely the cohesiveness is due to both the discontinuous literate authors and the illiterate masses who followed the oral tradition, which together in effect created a continuous and therefore relatively consistent set of texts for the OT.

 

[Yorzhik]

That's not how I remember it. In clearing up my misunderstanding of these issues ThePhy also nullified the thrust of your argument. Of course, you would never admit that. :bang:

We said the same thing so that nullified my argument? That doesn't follow.

 

[noguru]

We said the same thing so that nullified my argument? That doesn't follow.

Well first off you didn't say the same thing. I said that other forces in nature reverse SLoT as a response to your original claim. Your original claim being that the universe is a closed system and that SLoT ultimately wins out over all other natural forces. You said I was wrong, but you weren't specific about how you thought I was wrong. You appealed to ThePhy. ThePhy informed me that my statement that "other forces reverse SLoT" was innacurate. Since SLoT only works in a closed system and these other forces are not confined to a closed system it is like comparing apples to oranges. It then came down to whether or not the universe is a closed system. ThePhy and many others pointed out that we can't possibly be certain either way on that issue, given what we know of the universe. This nullifies your original claim that SLoT is the ultimate force in nature and that it will win out in the end over all the other forces in nature.

 

[Yorzhik]

noguru; Ah, no. That the universe is a closed system I haven't made a definitive decision yet, so I didn't say it was. It may not have mattered to the argument of evolution at the time, but just so you know you are wrong on that point as well. The entire argument against me was that the SLoT was reversed by other forces which I'm glad you admit you were wrong about.

 

[noguru]

noguru; Ah, no. That the universe is a closed system I haven't made a definitive decision yet, so I didn't say it was. It may not have mattered to the argument of evolution at the time, but just so you know you are wrong on that point as well. The entire argument against me was that the SLoT was reversed by other forces which I'm glad you admit you were wrong about.

I don't care about appearing to be right or wrong, as long as you admit that you cannot know whether the universe is a closed system and this in essence nullifies the argument (I thought it was your argument, but I could have been wrong) that SLoT is the ultimate force that wins out over all other forces in the universe. Can we agree on that?

 

[No Worries]

You take the speculations of men (like psychologists and psychiatrists ) way too seriously.

So do you when you assume man was beyond corruption when dealing with the bible.
Incidentally my generation too have heard of Jung and Freud. Their popularity may swing but it never seems to go away does it. Its all to easy for you to dismiss out of hand the works of some of the finest human minds.

First let me analyze the choices you gave me.

#1) the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired

#2) man is seen to evolve

Hmm. Wait a minute. Are these the only two choices?

Looking at your bible in this context, yes.

 

[bob b]

I said:

First let me analyze the choices you gave me.
#1) the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired
#2) man is seen to evolve
Hmm. Wait a minute. Are these the only two choices?

to which you replied.

Looking at your bible in this context, yes.

Doesn't the Bible teach a different story? Perhaps you should reread what choices you presented to me.

#1 seems to be that "the Bible is not inspired", but wouldn't there be a #1B that "the Bible is inspired?

Likewise your #2 seems to be that "man is seen to have evolved", but wouldn't there be a #2B where "man is seen to not have evolved".

So there are 4 sets of combinations from which to choose.

I choose #1B and #2B. I believe the Bible was inspired and man did not evolve from an apelike ancestor.

Atheists apparently choose #1A and #2A.

Weak Christians, those having more faith in evolutionists than they do in God's inspiration of the Bible, choose one of the two remaining combinations.

 

[aharvey]

The above is from the same source which opened this thread.

If anyone does ever bother to read “Teaching the Flaws in Neo-Darwinism” by Edward Sisson, please see if you have better luck than I had finding where he provided evidence to back up his copious accusations about the scurrilous behavior of evolutionists. Perhaps he, too, considers it to be "unproductive to spend time and effort" backing up one's accusations, since that would undoubtedly stanch the flow of said accusations!

 

[No Worries]

I said:



to which you replied.



Doesn't the Bible teach a different story? Perhaps you should reread what choices you presented to me.

#1 seems to be that "the Bible is not inspired", but wouldn't there be a #1B that "the Bible is inspired?

Likewise your #2 seems to be that "man is seen to have evolved", but wouldn't there be a #2B where "man is seen to not have evolved".

So there are 4 sets of combinations from which to choose.

I choose #1B and #2B. I believe the Bible was inspired and man did not evolve from an apelike ancestor.

Atheists apparently choose #1A and #2A.

Weak Christians, those having more faith in evolutionists than they do in God's inspiration of the Bible, choose one of the two remaining combinations.

But the original post said that if it were inspired it would not written that way. The four options you extract only apply if you ignore the orginal posting.