Genesis 1:26 comes up often in discussing the Trinity doctrine. I know some Trinitarians argue that God is talking to Himself, that is, “God the Father, the first person of the Trinity” is speaking with “God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.” This is mere opinion since nowhere do we find the term “God the Son” in the Bible.
Really if anyone else said that same phrase we would not conclude he was talking to himself, would we? It is apparent that God (all of God) is speaking to His Son, who we would eventually come to know as Jesus.
I gladly recognize that Jesus was “alongside his Father before the world was.” (John 17:5) The Son most definitely had a pre-human existence.
However, any attempt to read the Trinity or Binity into Genesis 1:26 are involved in a forced interpretation. It is obvious God is speaking to his Son, a completely different individual.
What if I was to follow the same way of reasoning in this text?
“Come, now, YOU people, and let us set matters straight between us,” says Jehovah.” (Isaiah 1:18).
Now humans must be part of a Trinity since Jehovah says “us,”? Yahweh/Jehovah was simply talking with His Son who was made in “his image.”
No matter how you try to present your argument, you always are left dealing with the notion that Genesis 1 proclaims the earth to have been created 6,000 years ago but science says it is 4.5 billion years old (approximately).
ReplyDeleteThat is a different discussion. The bible doesn't teach that the earth is 6,000 years old.
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew word "day" can mean a period of time, an era. It must be understood in Genesis as stages of life.
The order of events is all wrong. The sun was not created after the earth (day 4). Birds came after land animals (day 5 and day 6). God is confused scientifically.
DeleteFrom the stand point of someone on earth looking into the heavens, the cosmic dust cleared gradually by means of the solar radiation "wind;" the sun more readily discernable as a discreet light source. (Remember, as though a man was seeing it happen from the earth's surface) Moreover, the water mist shroud enveloping the earth was separated; some part into seas and oceans, the other into the upper thermal layer to produce a transparent water vapor band surrounding earth's breatheable atmosphere. These developments made it possible to see the discreet luminaries of the heavens. Scientists are convinced that the likeiness of a star system with planetary orbital companions being "made' together is the most reasonable inference to what they can observe and interpolate. The planets are there surrounding the yet unignited wanna-be-star-mass; and may yet remain with the newly ignited star as it's own solar system. So, most likely, the planets and the star surrounding which they orbit are the same age.
ReplyDeleteAt this time I would like to ask, "What do you consider an animal?" And on what evidence are you basing your conclusions?
ReplyDeleteThey are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms from the kingdom "animalia". Humans are animals. We are primates. We are mammals. We share a common ancestor with apes. 99% of all scientists agree with this. Not every scientist agrees with the mechanism.
DeleteWhen a scientist says something is "made", they mean "by natural processes it was put together". This is not because scientists deny the supernatural. Muslims have come to accepting different varieties of evolution, the Pope has stated that evolution is a theory that is worth investigating, biologists like Francis Colins and Kenneth Miller also reject intelligent design nonsense.
In regard to your perspective on Genesis 1, I will give that more look into. What about Genesis 2 though?
"...Francis Colins (sic) and Kenneth Miller also reject intelligent design nonsense."
ReplyDeleteBecause the design argument that is ascribed to teleology in the universe predates any and all biological considerations, it challenges the notion of purposelessness within even the first biological process. Thus, if biology cannot begin without some type of antecedent design then using biology to disprove design becomes self-refuting. This means that the biologist must give up their strict materialism or concede that their presuppositions rest upon a flawed foundation.
Once design is permitted within the cosmic order, then neither contemporary nor future debate about Darwinian mechanisms can ever succeed in repudiating belief in a creator.
Another thought. I am looking for evidence not any appeal to authority. What evidence do you feel proves there is no intelligent design? Or is something true or false because others believe it? Do you find comfort in numbers or truth? What is non-sense about having a Designer for that which is (or at the least gives an appearance of being) designed?
ReplyDeleteOh. That's what the design argument was. I thought the design argument was opposed to the scientific theory of evolution.
DeleteNo. This is true that things have a purpose. I am not one to doubt that. However, a materialist would still be able to explain this without an appeal to the supernatural. We are here to promote the common good of the human race.
There is no evidence that disproves a "creator". But this would be an argument from ignorance on my part. I can give a ton of evidence to demonstrate that the "creator" of the ID movement is deceptive and deceitful but this would only refute those IDers who reject common descent. Likewise, if I roll out the expectations and things we might expect from a "creator" if said world was "created". For instance, we might expect a little more repetiveness. We might expect to find in exotic areas, animals that don't even look exotic. If you think heavily on where the colors in people come from, you will have to resort to evolution.
As for a designer for things that appear to be designed. There is nothing that appears to be designed.
>>>No. This is true that things have a purpose. I am not one to doubt that. However, a materialist would still be able to explain this without an appeal to the supernatural. We are here to promote the common good of the human race.<<<
ReplyDeleteIf humans must create their own purpose during the course of their lives then this is actually an admission that there is no objective purpose after all. Claiming purposeful intent through communal experience is still entirely subjective, it's just that the subjective experience pool is larger. Thus, basing one's evidence on community in this way really just amounts to an "argumentum ad populum". As such, given a commitment to subjective purpose only, a materialist will never be able to explain first causes or fundamental physical processes without an appeal to something outside the natural order.
The eminent physicist and populariser Michio Kaku has wondered whether the purpose of the universe is to finally be understood by sentient life – that after more than 13 billion years the intricacies of quantum mechanics might finally be understood. However, this just IS to say that there is over-arching purpose within the universe. Yet, as soon as one admits to mind-independent purpose, the problem of pre-material agency must be acknowledged. It seems you have made the same mistake that Kaku did. Retrospectively imputing purpose into the universe is like blowing into the air and thinking that you now understand where the wind comes from.
>>>There is no evidence that disproves a "creator". But this would be an argument from ignorance on my part. I can give a ton of evidence to demonstrate that the "creator" of the ID movement is deceptive and deceitful but this would only refute those IDers who reject common descent. Likewise, if I roll out the expectations and things we might expect from a "creator" if said world was "created". For instance, we might expect a little more repetiveness. We might expect to find in exotic areas, animals that don't even look exotic. If you think heavily on where the colors in people come from, you will have to resort to evolution.<<<
It seems to be that you are conflating the term "evolution" with all of the various theories that it encompasses. Modification through descent is just one of the tenets of evolution, and it just so happens to be the one that almost everyone agrees upon. It is unfortunate that the evidence we have for evolution has been extrapolated to also embrace the speculative and fanciful with uncritical acceptance in the minds of many. For instance, we can observationally attest to phenotypic variation (colours in people), but what we do not see is an abundance of cross-domain or cross-phyla morphological change. As long as the evidence for the latter remains paltry, I see no reason to accept the more opaque, and sometimes furtive, ascriptions of evolutionary theory unless one is committed to naturalism from the outset.
>>>As for a designer for things that appear to be designed. There is nothing that appears to be designed.<<<
Nothing? What about DNA? What about the instructions embedded in DNA? Where did they come from? Chance? You have much more faith than I.
I hope to write a post on one of my wordpresses in response to this seeing as this little debate we have going on simply cannot have all points addressed purely in comment form. As for my "conflating" what evolution means, it simply refers to the explanation of how life changed over time. It is the terminology "intelligent design" and "creator" I seem to be conflating. To clarify, when I comment on these things, I mean "evolution skeptic". My next comment will be a link to my wordpress article in regard to the purpose and design arguments.
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to continue this discussion it will be here. I have no desire at all to discuss this on your blog, or anywhere else. Make a brief statement and we can go over each point one at a time. I do hope you will tell me where the instructions for DNA come from? Your turn.
ReplyDeleteRandom mutation and natural selection.
Deletehttp://dragonsabre.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/the-argument-from-design/
The old engine driving evolutionary change, genetic mutation along with natural selection, is not universally accepted among biologists today. In fact, some prominent evolutionists are calling for change. Accordingly, the "common rhetoric from anti-evolutionists" that you sneer at, is becoming a growing challenge among even some of the elite in biology. Lynn Margulis and Francisco Ayala are just two who believe that genetic mutation is incapable of producing a new species. An interview about this with Lynn Margulus can be read here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.suzanmazur.com/?p=195
Yes. The mechanism of evolution is disputed. However what she proposes is also a natural process. Maybe you didn't read the article.
Delete>>>Yes. The mechanism of evolution is disputed. However what she proposes is also a natural process. Maybe you didn't read the article.<<<
ReplyDeleteOf course the alternative is a natural process! Does anyone really think that biologists will become turncoats after a beloved theory is called into question? Most will just dig their heels in and till the same soil again using different tools.
The point of citing Margulis' interview was to show that as long as biologist's concede that random genetic mutation does not conclusively resolve the question of speciation, then no-one should be using it to prove macro-evolution, including you. More importantly, given that the mechanisms driving this type of evolution are hotly disputed, and so long as these mechanisms cannot be proven, then both of the following statements are methodologically equivalent:
1. We don't know how God did it, but God must have done it.
2. We don't know how nature did it, but nature must have done it.
Neither of these statements can be said to be strictly scientific – they are both "gappy". Nevertheless, both of them expose an advocate's presuppositions. How to choose? Why not just follow the evidence and see which explanation of reality can consistently withstand a rational inquest from first principles to last particles? I know what I would rather do.
>>>Of course the alternative is a natural process! Does anyone really think that biologists will become turncoats after a beloved theory is called into question?<<<
DeleteYou see, the problem with your statement here is that it fails epicly to grasp the purpose of science which is not to seek a conquest in favor of naturalism, it is to observe the natural world. This is why creationism is unscientific. Because it does not observe the natural world. It is religion because religion observes the supernatural.
Science and religion are not at war unless you make them the same exact subject.
As for natural selection - I have no problem with theories like guided evolution or symbiogenesis. These are simply alternative solutions. However, in my own personal research on the subject of evolution, it boils down to me as to what explains the evidence the best and what solves solutions and what, overall, does more. This is why I affirm evolution by natural selection.
I have shown you two scientists who both affirm evolution via natural selection and are some of the best experts in their subjects who are also theists so don't use arguments like "you have to be a naturalist to accept evolution". I was an evolutionist already before becoming an agnostic.
So after all of this it appears your problem is not with religious belief per se, but with giving up natural selection as the prime mover for your thesis on speciation. You admit to not being averse to theistic evolution or religious concepts in general, and you even recognize that science and religion are not at war. Really, you should be commended for having such an open mind.
ReplyDeleteNo I am not adverse to theistic evolution. Most primarily because it is NOT in opposition to scientific acheivements. If you are saying that I have to reject Darwinian natural selection to believe in creation then I will never revert to theism.
ReplyDeleteEvery single thing creationists throw out is always a lie. Lies, lies, lies, and more LIES! Yes, I am an anti-creationist. This is because creationists not only stupid but are also STUBBORN about their stupidity.
You’re going to have to bring it down a notch and keep your emotions in check if you want to have a discussion with me. Such outbursts spoil the spirit of respectful dialogue.
ReplyDeleteAt this time I would like to bring out two quotes from the book: "Science and Creationism," A Montagu ed. Oxford University Press. 1984. The purpose of the book is to debunk creationism and show what science really is.
In the chapter "Towards an evolutionary theology," Kenneth E. Boulding wrote (p 47):
"One could nominate a fifth principle—that the business of the scientific community is to diminish error rather than to discover truth. Perhaps not all scientists will agree with this. All that testing can do, however, is to detect error. We can never be sure, therefore, that error will not be detected in any presently accepted scientific proposition at some time in the future.
In the chapter "'Scientific creationism'—marketing deception as truth," Garrett Hardin wrote (p. 162):
"There is a widespread belief among the public that the statements of science are provable. Scientists and philosophers now agree that this is wrong. No scientific statement is ever fully proved. Science is made up of statements that may be proved false but that have not, in fact, been proved false by the most rigorous tests"
Both authors build on the dictum of the philosopher of science Karl Popper that scientific hypotheses can be falsified but never verified. When this is true in connection with hypotheses dealing with phenomena in the present world, how much more in connection with phenomena of the past?
I would like to clarify at this time that I do not class myself as a Creationist. "Creationism" 'sticks in the craw' of reasonable men, notwithstanding their education level in the sciences. There is evidence all around us that bespeaks periods lasting eons prior to (esp) and during the earth's preparation (uncertain, but very long).
If the "creationists" you mention are classed with those who demand acceptance of a literal 24 hour day creation period as the required view of faith, then I feel a need to clear my throat as well.
Could you please now give me a specific example you would like to discuss? Let us move from generalities to specifics.
When I say "creationists", I mean all people who deny the theory of evolution. What you state on scientific procedures is correct. There is no way to prove evolution via natural selection.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it has been tested over and over again as the best explanatory method that
a) it cannot be proven false and
b) no other theory explains the evidence well enough.
Kenneth Miller covers three chapters on the subject of different intelligent design claims from young earth creationists to old earth creationists to intelligent design adherents.
On his section where he refutes Phillip Johnson, he even proceeds to question the "magic act" as if god created things in such a way to look like evolution happened.
When I say "creationists", I include Hugh Ross style creationists along with young earthers.
>>>If you are saying that I have to reject Darwinian natural selection to believe in creation then I will never revert to theism.<<<
ReplyDeleteYour needn't give up natural selection as a mechanism for phenotypic variation. This is in full accord with the observational data (e.g. Galapagos Finches etc.) and is even used "intelligently" within animal husbandry today. Where there is a lack of similar attestation is in the morphology attributed to the crossing of higher taxonomic classifications. At a methodological level, this is an example of the fallacy of composition that is unfortunately being continuously passed on as scientific fact.
There is a strong tendency among evolutionists to imbue their theory with godlike potential. When empowered in this way, I personally don't see a lot of difference between this kind of idolatrous abstractum and Plato's Forms. Both require extra-scientific (non-biological) analysis to sift through their claims.
A series of microevolution processes produces macroevolution. They are essentially one and the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThis is the fallacy of composition that was mentioned earlier. It is an attempt to argue that something is true of the whole because it is true for each part.
ReplyDeleteConsider the following argument:
1. All evolutionary variations are small.
2. Evolution comprises many small variations.
3. Therefore, evolution results in large variations.
Arithmetically, many small items can be grouped into a larger set. That's fine. However, consistency would require that other valid deductive formulations be accepted as well:
1. All evolutionary gaps are small.
2. Evolution comprises many small gaps.
3. Therefore, evolution results in large gaps.
The real problem, however, is when evolutionists conflate quantitative variation with qualitative variation:
1. All evolutionary variations are taxonomically small.
2. Evolution comprises many taxonomically small variations.
3. Therefore, evolution results in taxonomically large variations.
Current Darwinian Theory holds that the first two premises are true. Nevertheless, because of what is understood about discrete taxonomic classification, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises so this is an invalid argument by virtue of fallacious composition.
Until a testable and observable account can be given for morphological change across the larger taxonomies, the claim that micro and macro evolution amount to "one and the same thing" is just an unsubstantiated equivocation.
Right but this would be confusing and conflating linear evolution with web evolution.
ReplyDeleteBoth insist on common ancestor with a common descent. However, web evolution has recognized that there are webs that sprout out from various different ancestors pending on the ancestors.
For instance, cats are not classified as apes but are classified as mammals. Humans are not classified as felines but are classified as mammals.
Therefore, there was an ancestor that was a mammal that produced two different descendants. One eventually resembling an ape and the other a feline. From these two we get modern apes and felines but from the one we get modern mammals.
So don't say that taxonomical variations have not been observed. Simply put, the taxonomical system is what evolutionary biologists expect from the result of evolution.
No. Morphological change across the higher taxonomies has neither been observed nor tested. How can this challenge possibly be answered by positing yet another theoretical "process"? If we ask an artificer to see their rare items and all we get in response is spin, should we have confidence that such wares even exist?
ReplyDeleteLikewise, irrespective of whether web evolution has any merit, inflating yet another hypothesis does nothing to repeal the need for observational data. It is like leaving another bubble in place of one that has just burst.
I asked for:
1. Observational data... I got expected data.
2. How such data can be tested... I got a testimonial.
Unfortunately, your own language now seems to be a case of dictum without data and expectation without evidence. So long as you are prepared to substitute evolutionary expectation with scientific evidence, then any contrary talk that exposes deficiencies in your theory can be dismissed without investigation.
Your argument as previously presented is still invalid. Furthermore, moving from a subset of established data to a superset without similar attestation results in another inductive fallacy – that of hasty generalization.
Regrettably, I think this conversation seems to be going nowhere fast.
The only reason this conversation is going nowhere is because the observational data is equivelent to the expectational data. The fossil record itself attestifies to this. And the data itself is the evidence. What you are asking scientists to do is to be ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I was wrong in thinking that the conversation was going nowhere. It is going somewhere, just around in circles!
ReplyDelete1) You: "Look in the fossil record."
2) Me: "I'm looking in the fossil record and can't find macro-evolutionary steps."
3) You: "Then you're not looking hard enough or you're not looking in the right place."
4) Me: "Where should I be looking then?"
5) You: "You need to look at where the evidence is found."
6) Me: "Where is the evidence found?"
7) You: "Look in the fossil record."
8) Me: "Who's on First?"
In order to avoid the impact of the two fallacies that you've been called on, you have to resort to arguing for a well-formed evolutionary tree of life again. However, as has already been pointed out, current evolutionary theory is itself in dispute and Margulis and Ayala were cited as two that believe that Neo-Darwinism is now dead (Ayala also considers contemporary illustrations of the tree of life to be largely inadequate).
Regarding your 'fossil record' claim, in short, there is insufficient evidence to prove macro-evolutionary change in the manner that you describe. Really, you should either acknowledge the holes in evolutionary evidences used heretofore, or accept that you must continue to employ invalid argumentation in order to sustain an assumptive methodology.
I am not asking scientists to be ridiculous, I am asking that scientists be scientific.
Please see the article "Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge," that also challenges the 'fossil record' claim. William Dembski offers the most common responses to these questions and a rejoinder. You may find it helpful.
ReplyDelete-http://designinference.com/documents/2004.04.Five_Questions_Ev.pdf
Okay. You want fossil evidence? Here it is:
DeleteElephants/Mammoths
Tyrannosaurus Rex and Allosaurus
Dinosaurs and Birds
Fish and Whales
The Platypus
Why are whales so similar to fish?
You: "However, as has already been pointed out, current evolutionary theory is itself in dispute and Margulis and Ayala were cited as two that believe that Neo-Darwinism is now dead"
Me: A statement that attempts to hide facts. All that is disputed about evolution is the MECHANISM.
If you insist to see the fossil evidence here it is:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_02
http://carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2000/marapr/feat7.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/index.html
Kenneth Miller was addressing to a prominent intelligent design adherent, Michael Behe, in a debate, irrefutably evidence that humans are descended from apes and Behe's response was an "I agree". No one disputes common ancestry.
I thought that you might want to know that calling up William Dembski's refutations of evolution is not going to prove your case since Dembski is a mathematician and not a scientist. What I find ironic about the "intelligent design" movement is that it simply promotes a deist god that is incompatible with the three prominent Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
On your 'a' point:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample2.html
And your 'b' point is purely subjective, who decides? If an authority higher than humans is not appreciated, it becomes a personal preference then.
You are operating your arguments on zero data, hence pure choice.
After going through the information from your links I can't find anything that "demonstrates" morphological change across the higher taxonomies. These are older articles and they represent the evolutionary tree of life as though speciation occurred seamlessly - an interpretation that has already been shown to be inadequate. This isn't just a problem of mechanism then, it is even more a problem of inductive discourse.
ReplyDeleteThe higher taxonomies that are contained within geologic strata by themselves do not show macro-evolutionary transitions. Instead, it is the ensuing process of inductive discourse amongst evolutionists that commends and celebrates these transitions.
Though you may balk at the notion, the geologic data is also compatible with intelligent creation over periods of time, or epochs (in combination with phenotypic variation). This is a legitimate interpretation of the data that is also arrived at inductively.
As for noted similarities between taxonomic classifications, why think that these had to evolve unless one pre-emptively rejects all non-naturalistic alternatives? On the flip side, we already know how intelligence might fashion cross-domain functionality between systems. Software engineers have been doing this for decades. Reusable and inheritable components allow for complex and modular systems to be implemented with relatively few base abstractions or interfaces.
In fact, these concepts have proven so useful that scientists have given them their own names (object oriented design, interface segregation principle, reused abstractions principle etc.) Would anyone really deny a creator's prerogative to reuse their own components when designing a new system? As a matter of fact, we wouldn't be discussing this issue on the internet if we ourselves weren't beneficiaries of these kinds of useful abstractions.
Your criticism of Dembski is unjustified. Sounds as though you don't like interdisciplinary help. Mathematics is pure science. As a mathematician, Dembski would understand the probability calculus and therefore be far better qualified than most biologists to examine the odds associated with many of their more inferential claims.
The bottom line is that effective use of mathematics will only ever make other scientific endeavours better, not worse. I will address your other remarks shared as I find time.
One can, in a very few places, look at the fossil record, say the whale's blow-hole, and interpolate intermediary progression. For example, the Pakicetus (set at 50 million yrs); Aetiocetus (set at 25 million years); Gray Whale (today), is presented as intermediary proof of evolution. Aetiocetus is said to be the intermediary of Pakicetus and the modern Gray Whale, and therefore proof of gradual micro-evolution's process over time.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can explain what basis there is for a rodent-like creature being an ancestor of the whale??? As with anything humans do, especially when asserting a cherished theory (as well as religion, or life-style, et al), excited interpretation, and interpolation, blinds them to a measure of critical analysis of their findings.
Moreover, the mind interpolates a connection almost unconsciously, filling gaps with suppositions. When something makes its appearance in perceived accord with desired, "expected" patterns, though an alternate interpretation is possible (Designer; separate species, etc.), this becomes the holy grail looked for, and is added to the discourse among evolution proponents as yourself.
There is nothing really wrong with this process, as long as the evidence is neither exaggerated nor ignored, and that alternatives are not a priori rejected with vehemence. As we all know this is not what happens. Many will not even "sniff at" the possibility of a designer and creator.
The so called "evidence" you presented to me is overly simplistic and overstated, although the term "suggests" is used in connection with a conclusion made regarding homologous structures implying a common ancestor, from which the evolution process lead to presently existing creatures.
However, the claim that this represents proof demonstrates the desperation you feel at grasping anything to avoid free fall. This is the same old rhetoric and discourse that does nothing to show gradual evolution, that is, the incremental intermediaries.
What is shown may be compared to what we see today among a family of animal-differences that separate them as a different specie within a family. What you showed actually supports my argument that you are making wide, grandiose assertions without scientific proof. An interpretation of a designer and creator makes more sense.
Evolution claims to have created itself. Dembski's scientific ground work shows the absurdity of this by pointing out the odds of this ever taking place (thanks to quantum theory and alternate universe theory he has had to do this), and is therefore shunned by evolutionists/atheists/agnostics.
Concerning whales: Listen, please, to these two revealing podcasts and read also the link to the article on whales:
ReplyDeletehttp://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/index/2011-12-02T13_36_08-08_00
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/index/2012-12-12T16_42_36-08_00
And the following article:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html
(There are several further interesting links in the article itself - including links to some talks by Richard Sternberg.)
".....In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors."
>>>>Mathematics is pure science. As a mathematician, Dembski would understand the probability calculus and therefore be far better qualified than most biologists to examine the odds associated with many of their more inferential claims.<<<<<
ReplyDelete>>>>>Dembski's scientific ground work shows the absurdity of this by pointing out the odds of this ever taking place (thanks to quantum theory and alternate universe theory he has had to do this), and is therefore shunned by evolutionists/atheists/agnostics.<<<<<
Nick, if mathematical probability refutes the theory of evolution then you might as well state John F. Kennedy couldn't have possibly been our president and Isaac Newton could have never possibly lived past the age of 1. I know that there are many respectable mathematicians who do not believe in evolution. I am 99% certain that one of my favorite math teachers in high school was an intelligent design adherent.
I too used to be an intelligent design adherent. Additionally, intelligent design further does not even prove that God exists which is why I am glad to find that you finally did not classify evolution as atheistic. The earth could have just created us according to intelligent design for all we know. This is yet another major flaw of the intelligent design movement, IMHO.
Evolution is a complicated theory to come to terms with but when you start breaking things down, you should find that unless common ancestry is true, then the intelligent designer is an incredible deceiver. Even if you could convince me of intelligent design, I highly doubt that your god is the designer.
>>> Nick, if mathematical probability refutes the theory of evolution then you might as well state John F. Kennedy couldn't have possibly been our president and Isaac Newton could have never possibly lived past the age of 1.<<<
ReplyDeleteThis is a misunderstanding of the probability calculus as you haven't considered the prior probabilities involved in the background information for each occurrence.
In fact, it is the prior probabilities within evolution which makes many of its more speculative tenets so improbable. The idea in applying this kind of calculation is not to formally refute certain aspects of evolution, but to show that assenting to these aspects is so extraordinarily difficult that it can only be done on pain of irrationality or an act of faith.
>>>The earth could have just created us according to intelligent design for all we know.<<<
For all we know? This is just epistemological nonsense. A rock that creates things intelligently???
Maybe you are advocating pantheism. However, even if that were the case, then by your own admission such a god would still be deceptive - it's just that deception would be baked into reality rather than having a specific source, arguably an even more unpalatable prospect. As I see it then, we are dealing with three alternatives:
1. No creator.
2. A deceptive creator (theistic or pantheistic et al.)
3. Deceptive people.
Of the three, which one is most verifiably true? We have first order experience of 3, only speculative inference for 2 and no logical possibility of ever confirming 1. Therefore, it is far easier to believe 3 than 2 and illogical to accept 1 on any evidential grounds.
But you will most likely retort, "Intelligent Design adherents can be deceptive too!" Of course they can. But arguing for 2 based upon disteleology will always be far less obvious than the evidence we already have for 3. So now we are left with evaluating the claims of each advocate, bringing us right back to where we started. Way to go.
>>>>>This is a misunderstanding of the probability calculus as you haven't considered the prior probabilities involved in the background information for each occurrence.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it is the prior probabilities within evolution which makes many of its more speculative tenets so improbable. The idea in applying this kind of calculation is not to formally refute certain aspects of evolution, but to show that assenting to these aspects is so extraordinarily difficult that it can only be done on pain of irrationality or an act of faith.<<<<<
Nick, I think you are the one misunderstanding the probability argument against the theory of evolution. Especially, since when I was a strong creationist, I looked this argument up on reasons.org. This is Hugh Ross's official website ministry. He is a progressive creationist like you.
The probability argument argues that the mathematical odds of the random mutation process happening the way it did is so improbable that therefore evolution is false. Note that it is dealing with the RANDOM MUTATION PROCESS. The probability of the evolutionary process producing this is highly unlikely and evolutionists like Stephen Hawking and Stephen J. Gould already know this! Thus, William Dembski and Hugh Ross are essentially preaching to a choir when they inform evolutionists of this. It doesn't disprove the theory of evolution it just asserts that the random mutation process could have worked out differently. This is simply how history has worked out as well. Evolution is random mutation PLUS natural selection though.
>>>>>For all we know? This is just epistemological nonsense. A rock that creates things intelligently???<<<<<
Gaia hypothesis. The hypothesis states that the earth is living. Hence, a living thing created things intelligently, not a rock.
http://erg.ucd.ie/arupa/references/gaia.html
>>>>>Maybe you are advocating pantheism. However, even if that were the case, then by your own admission such a god would still be deceptive - it's just that deception would be baked into reality rather than having a specific source, arguably an even more unpalatable prospect. As I see it then, we are dealing with three alternatives:
1. No creator.
2. A deceptive creator (theistic or pantheistic et al.)
3. Deceptive people.
Of the three, which one is most verifiably true? We have first order experience of 3, only speculative inference for 2 and no logical possibility of ever confirming 1. Therefore, it is far easier to believe 3 than 2 and illogical to accept 1 on any evidential grounds.<<<<<
Except for the fact that number 1 is only true if we eliminate number 1 and a half which states there is a creator but the creator used the process of evolution or the creator triggered the process of evolution.
2 straw-men and 1 false dichotomy and this is why we are still in circles.
>>>Nick, I think you are the one misunderstanding the probability argument against the theory of evolution.<<<
ReplyDeleteIn your ensuing criticism you cite the probability calculus as used against the process of random mutation, and you are correct that it has been used in this way.
However, it is simply incomplete to argue against Bayes theorem concerning mutation "only" while neglecting the abundance of prior probabilities that preceded even that (e.g. abiogenesis, reproductive pathways etc.) Naturalistic explanations therefore have improbability stacked upon improbability to account for.
Worse yet, many of these prior probabilities can't be explained through mutation and natural selection since there was a time when nature had nothing to select and no organism to mutate.
A number of times now we have discussed how random mutation has been shown to be inadequate, yet you continue to push this same canard. Just saying it ain't so ain't saying another is.
>>>Gaia hypothesis. The hypothesis states that the earth is living. Hence, a living thing created things intelligently, not a rock.<<<
I find it astounding that you are prepared to accept Gaia theory and ascribe superintending intelligence to a rock in order to avoid the implications of intelligent design theory. Could this be the most literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:4 ever?
Seriously, even if I grant you the Gaia hypothesis we are still left with the Earth as a contingent entity so it cannot therefore be the source of its own intelligence.
The Gaia hypothesis in no way obviates the need for a transcendent explanation and in fact only pushes creation back to an earlier time. Hence, if creation must have occurred anyway, it is perfectly reasonable to reject the Gaia hypothesis on the grounds of simplicity alone since it posits causes unnecessarily.
>>>Except for the fact that number 1 is only true if we eliminate number 1 and a half which states there is a creator but the creator used the process of evolution or the creator triggered the process of evolution.<<<
I'm not sure I get you. If a creator triggered the process of evolution then we have by your own mouth an admission of intelligent design! Your beef must be only with those who dispute evolution as an all-encompassing theory.
However, I have given you information to show that your position is logically unsound. I have given you information to show that your position is geologically unwarranted. I have given you information to show that your position is biologically undecided.
Basically, I have given you information to show that your entire position is evidentially uncertain. At the very least, no-one can rightly be badgered into believing that macro-evolution exemplifies sound scientific theory, and even less so an all-encompassing one.
>>>2 straw-men and 1 false dichotomy and this is why we are still in circles.<<<
This is multiply confused. How does it follow that there are two straw men here? You HAVE argued for no creator (1). You HAVE argued for a deceptive creator (2). That's two out of three. At most there could be one straw man (3), but only if you are reasoning that I think that you think that people can't be deceptive! Additionally, given that I gave three alternatives (not two) the argument as written isn't even a dichotomy, let alone a false one.
If you like assessing argumentation, then maybe you should further consider the two informal fallacies that you never denied making in your previous critiques.
I'm sorry, something screwy happened when I tried to post my most recent rebuttal. Sorry to keep you waiting.
ReplyDelete>>>>>In your ensuing criticism you cite the probability calculus as used against the process of random mutation, and you are correct that it has been used in this way.
However, it is simply incomplete to argue against Bayes theorem concerning mutation "only" while neglecting the abundance of prior probabilities that preceded even that (e.g. abiogenesis, reproductive pathways etc.) Naturalistic explanations therefore have improbability stacked upon improbability to account for.
Worse yet, many of these prior probabilities can't be explained through mutation and natural selection since there was a time when nature had nothing to select and no organism to mutate.
A number of times now we have discussed how random mutation has been shown to be inadequate, yet you continue to push this same canard. Just saying it ain't so ain't saying another is.<<<<<
Nick, you are trying to suggest, using Bayes' theorem that chaos theory is an impossibility. If we even think about how it improbable it would be us to be even HAVING this conversation. First, we must exist which means our parents had to exist which means their parents had to exist, etc., etc., etc. Think about how unlikely it is that I would have even STUMBLED upon your blog out of the billions and billions and billions of google links out there. All Bayes' theorem shows scientists is what they already know. They already know the improbability and how if we rewind the game clock, we might get different results. The most exciting football games often times depend strictly on luck. A series of CHANCES! And yet, we know they are natural processes because we observed it.
>>>>>I find it astounding that you are prepared to accept Gaia theory and ascribe superintending intelligence to a rock in order to avoid the implications of intelligent design theory. Could this be the most literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:4 ever?
Seriously, even if I grant you the Gaia hypothesis we are still left with the Earth as a contingent entity so it cannot therefore be the source of its own intelligence.
The Gaia hypothesis in no way obviates the need for a transcendent explanation and in fact only pushes creation back to an earlier time. Hence, if creation must have occurred anyway, it is perfectly reasonable to reject the Gaia hypothesis on the grounds of simplicity alone since it posits causes unnecessarily.<<<<<
I never stated that I was ascribing intelligence to a "rock". I can't if the earth is a living being. You probably should look more into the big bang theory a bit more though. It never states that the nothing created something. In fact, the very statement of the BBT proclaims that our universe was once in a hot dense state and then it expanded. Therefore, matter and anti-matter were already there before the big bang which makes sense since matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
>>>>>I'm not sure I get you. If a creator triggered the process of evolution then we have by your own mouth an admission of intelligent design! Your beef must be only with those who dispute evolution as an all-encompassing theory.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have given you information to show that your position is logically unsound. I have given you information to show that your position is geologically unwarranted. I have given you information to show that your position is biologically undecided.
Basically, I have given you information to show that your entire position is evidentially uncertain. At the very least, no-one can rightly be badgered into believing that macro-evolution exemplifies sound scientific theory, and even less so an all-encompassing one.<<<<<
Um...hello. Our debate is about the theory of evolution vs. intelligent design. However, if you want to interject metaphysical statements into it, here is a video you might enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jkGoqO0sZg
>>>>>This is multiply confused. How does it follow that there are two straw men here? You HAVE argued for no creator (1). You HAVE argued for a deceptive creator (2). That's two out of three. At most there could be one straw man (3), but only if you are reasoning that I think that you think that people can't be deceptive! Additionally, given that I gave three alternatives (not two) the argument as written isn't even a dichotomy, let alone a false one.
If you like assessing argumentation, then maybe you should further consider the two informal fallacies that you never denied making in your previous critiques.<<<<<
The "1., 2., 3." list you gave was the false dichotomy. The 2 straw-men are that you attack evolution using probability and that you state that Gaia hypothesis considers a "rock" a living being.
And, okay, false TRI-chotomy.
>>> You are trying to suggest, using Bayes' theorem that chaos theory is an impossibility.<<<
ReplyDeleteI wasn't referring to Chaos theory at all. In fact, I never even mentioned Chaos theory. This is yet another attempt to invade the discussion with extraneous detail as if it is germane to the point at hand.
More significantly, however, such posturing represents another informal fallacy, namely ignoratio elenchi, red herring. It is always counterproductive to be drawn into digressions about theoretical states that leave the mainstay of a discussion to wither.
>>> All Bayes' theorem shows scientists is what they already know.<<<
Arguing that all the probability calculus shows is what scientists already know is a gross misunderstanding of the use of the theorem. Among other things, it is a way of establishing a calculable probability that also enforces the need for an explanation of prior probabilities. Simply pointing to improbable events, as you have done, does nothing to demonstrate how prior probabilities are actually overcome.
Moreover, your use of recurring improbable events as a rebuttal completely misses the point. It simply does not follow that because some improbable events occur, then any improbable event can occur. This is yet again an example of the fallacy of faulty generalisation.
>>> I never stated that I was ascribing intelligence to a "rock". I can't if the earth is a living being. You probably should look more into the big bang theory a bit more though. It never states that the nothing created something.<<<
What on earth does this have to do with attributing intelligence to the Earth? I can't even make sense of this response, sorry.
ReplyDelete>>> Um...hello. Our debate is about the theory of evolution vs. intelligent design. However, if you want to interject metaphysical statements into it, here is a video you might enjoy:<<<
Um... Hi.
More than any other response thus far, this particular one reveals the depth of your misunderstanding. You really need to recheck the remarks that prompted your own. Not once did I appeal to metaphysics or use metaphysical language to engage your argument.
Yes, the debate is about evolution and intelligent design but only matters of logic, geology, and biology were raised. Metaphysics was not "interjected" at all and so your complaint is demonstrably a straw man as well as a category error. That's two more informal fallacies to add to your collection.
Miller's video is fascinating, but it doesn't prove common ancestry any more than software engineering principles prove that Microsoft Excel came from Microsoft Word. As has already been discussed, there are perfectly legitimate explanations of the data that appeal to well-established uses of intelligence, rather than less well-established mechanisms that are devoid of it.
However, Miller's biggest mistake is in thinking that his telepsychoanalysis of God actually strengthens his argument. It does not. Answering the question, "Why would a creator have made it that way?" with the jibe, "Because he was being deceptive!" only weakens his science. Why? Because this is transductive reasoning that adds nothing to his methodology except to reveal an undeveloped moral pretext to his objections.
>>> The "1., 2., 3." list you gave was the false dichotomy. The 2 straw-men are that you attack evolution using probability and that you state that Gaia hypothesis considers a "rock" a living being.<<<
I really hate to say it but this comment reveals your disingenuousness. That's a bold claim, I know. But consider this: The Gaia hypothesis was not raised until after my argument was falsely decried as a false dichotomy and rebuked as having two straw men.
Consequently, this hypothesis can't count as even one of the straw men that were allegedly exposed as it hadn't even been thought of yet, much less written about! It seems you have deliberately displaced temporal aspects of your rebuttals so as to avoid confronting your own fallacious reasoning. This is not so much a fallacy as it is a falsification.
I think it has become clear that you are someone who lacks respect for the basic principles of argumentation, and pays no heed to inductive fallacies except when accusing another of their employ.
Time and again you have been shown that there are legitimate alternative interpretations of the data which don't rest upon credulity, yet time and again you erect a distraction in place of a reply. These types of hydra-like defences are impossible to permanently cut down.
And so as far as rational discourse goes, I think it is fair to say that your ship has already foundered. What this means is that I can't sink an argument that doesn't even float. Thus, this is a huge waste of time.
Nick stated:
ReplyDelete>>>>>Consequently, this hypothesis can't count as even one of the straw men that were allegedly exposed as it hadn't even been thought of yet, much less written about! It seems you have deliberately displaced temporal aspects of your rebuttals so as to avoid confronting your own fallacious reasoning. This is not so much a fallacy as it is a falsification.<<<<<
>>>>>1. No creator.
2. A deceptive creator (theistic or pantheistic et al.)
3. Deceptive people.<<<<<
Metaphysics.
Okay, so we have both lied and have both made plenty of fallacies. I believe you have discussed that the species tree has not reached scientific consensus which is actually an utter lie. The scientific consensus on common descent is approximately 99%. That's consensus.
Yes, there are many ways to interpret the data. As I have already addressed, science does not state anything on god and its main duty is to investigate the natural world. Therefore, by definition, science CANNOT invoke a supernatural creator.
>>>>>Arguing that all the probability calculus shows is what scientists already know is a gross misunderstanding of the use of the theorem. Among other things, it is a way of establishing a calculable probability that also enforces the need for an explanation of prior probabilities. Simply pointing to improbable events, as you have done, does nothing to demonstrate how prior probabilities are actually overcome.<<<<<
My friend, if I were to shuffle a deck of cards multiple times in a row, then the result that which I got in that explicit sequence each time, would be bound to have the same probability. Again, scientific studies on origins can only make conclusions based on what happened while staying inside the natural realms. This is NOT because science is atheistic.
>>>>>Miller's video is fascinating, but it doesn't prove common ancestry any more than software engineering principles prove that Microsoft Excel came from Microsoft Word. As has already been discussed, there are perfectly legitimate explanations of the data that appeal to well-established uses of intelligence, rather than less well-established mechanisms that are devoid of it.<<<<<
This is actually the strongest point you have addressed. However, what your analogy does demonstrate is a point that Miller was actually making. Microsoft Excel did not come from Microsoft Excel in the same way that humans did not come from monkeys but Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word both came from...MICROSOFT! Thank you for proving that Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word both have a...common ancestor!
Your are right and the common ancestor is .. Adam.
ReplyDeleteAdam/Microsoft required a creator, they did not evolve on their own.
It's time to hang it up. You have already made up your mind long before communicating with me. Okay.
I'll leave with an article for "the tree of Life."
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr
Kind regards.
ReplyDeleteOops! This is the actual article:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1481
I looked up Casey Luskin, the author of that article.
ReplyDeletehttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Casey_Luskin
Why DOES the intelligent design movement have a lawyer as their head?
With respect to Adam/Microsoft:
a) you are assuming that evolution does away with a creator
b) you are assuming that Microsoft was actually created rather than gradually evolved in the long history of computers
c) you are assuming that Adam was a real individual rather than symbolic.
In religious studies courses at the secular level, when we go over Genesis 1-11, we identify Adam and Eve as symbolic figures.
Here is a link on the tree of life:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.texscience.org/reports/sboe-tree-life-2009feb7.htm
ReplyDeleteNow you are resorting to smearing Casey Luskin's credentials? Who cares if he knows law or doesn't? This only proves you are searching for any ammo. you can to tear down. It doesn't work. Why not bring out his degrees and accomplishments in geology? "Oh, no! Like math, that's not science'!"
I'm no longer interested in dissecting all of your comments since we both know where this leads. If you choose to believe that I have no reason to believe Microsoft was created, well, be my guest. If you want to think Adam was a symbolic figure where there is not too much I can do about that can I?
However, what about the Jewish ancestral lists recorded in the Bible book of First Chronicles chapters 1 to 9 and in the Gospel of Luke chapter 3? These remarkably detailed genealogical records span 48 and 75 generations respectively. All the names in the two lists represent real people, and Adam was the original real person on each list.
More important, Jesus Christ, the most credible witness in the Bible, acknowledged the existence of Adam and Eve. When challenged on the subject of divorce, Jesus answered: “From the beginning of creation ‘[God] made them male and female. On this account a man will leave his father and mother, and the two will be one flesh’ . . . Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.” (Mark 10:6-9) Would Jesus use an allegory to establish a binding legal precedent? No! Jesus quoted Genesis as fact. I think I'm done here. Best wishes.
How certain are you the genealogies weren't fabricated?
ReplyDeleteI did not intend to attack Luskin's credentials. I am certain he has great scientific competency as many intelligent design adherents seem to have. However, as a lawyer, Luskin will argue for intelligent design in a lawyer-like fashion. Scientists search for the best explanation while lawyers try to persuade people to their side.
Whether or not Jesus believed in a literal Adam or Eve cannot be established from what he spoke of them. If I were to speak of Frodo and Samwise as if they were real do they all of a sudden become real?
Really? How do we know if anything is a fabrication? We test it out. How would a Hebrew prove his right to settle in a certain tribal territory if there were no genealogical documents to establish his ancestral history?
ReplyDeleteR.K. Harrison observed that: “Records of descent were an extremely important part of Hebrew tradition from the very beginning…” (Bromiley, 2.425)
When I read scriptures such as Jude 14 which state: "The seventh one in line from Adam, Enoch, prophesied also regarding the wicked." I have no reason to distrust it.
How do I know Adam was not a mythical character? Here's another outstanding reason.
Jesus Christ gave his perfect human life as a ransom to save people from their sins. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16)
As we know, a ransom is a payment of a corresponding value to redeem or buy back something lost or forfeited. That is why the Bible describes Jesus as “a corresponding ransom.” (1 Timothy 2:6)
Corresponding to what, you might ask? The Bible answers: “Just as inAdam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22) The perfect life that Jesus sacrificed to redeem obedient mankind corresponds to the perfect life that Adam lost as a result of the original sin in Eden. (Romans 5:12)
Clearly, if Adam did not exist, Christ’s ransom sacrifice would be rendered completely meaningless.
It is apparent the only reason you don't want to accept that God made man in his image is that you want to believe "from goo to you via the zoo."
I still find it odd that you have a bone to pick with Casey Luskin being a scientist and a lawyer at the same time. Are you telling me a scientist who also happens to practice law could not write a journal or book advocating evolutionism or abiogenesis? Give me a break.
>>>>>Clearly, if Adam did not exist, Christ’s ransom sacrifice would be rendered completely meaningless.<<<<<
ReplyDeleteWhenever someone says "clearly", it is generally the first indication that what he says isn't really "clear".
First off, in Hebrews 7, Melchizedek is given no genealogy. Does this mean maybe that he is eternal or are we going based off what we have recorded? Secondly, Jesus's genalogies are only meant as tools to link him back to David. However, Luke 3:23-38 and Matt. 1:1-16 both contain contradicting genealogies. Matt. 1:17 asserts that there are 14 generations from A to B, 14 generations from B to C, and 14 generations from C to D. However, one list must have only 13 since there are only 41 genealogies mentioned (another contradiction).
Paul's comparison of Adam to Jesus does not prove a thing about Jesus's redemptive work. He could just as easily be pulling upon Adam as a representative of all humankind and therefore is saying "Humans sin, so Jesus came to make us anew".
>>>>>I still find it odd that you have a bone to pick with Casey Luskin being a scientist and a lawyer at the same time. Are you telling me a scientist who also happens to practice law could not write a journal or book advocating evolutionism or abiogenesis? Give me a break.<<<<<
If a lawyer were to write a book advocating the theory of evolution (which a similar thing has happened http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Disservice-Young-Earth-Science/dp/1450583334/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358517038&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=disservice+of+young+earth+creationists), I would read his material with the understanding that he isn't trying to be scientific in his study.
>>>Whenever someone says "clearly", it is generally the first indication that what he says isn't really "clear".<<<
ReplyDeleteThis is just absurd. Comments like this are typical of someone who just loves to argue.
Next, you present the silly argument of a person who has never read the Bible with understanding.
>>>First off, in Hebrews 7, Melchizedek is given no genealogy. Does this mean maybe that he is eternal or are we going based off what we have recorded?<<<
Parroted reasoning like this has been addressed long ago. I’m not going to take the time to explain this to you personally but I will forward you an answer below that was published by Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Since the ancient priest named Melchizedek was a real human, why does the Bible say that he was “without genealogy”?
This statement is made at Hebrews 7:3. Note the verse in its context:
“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him and to whom Abraham apportioned a tenth from all things, is first of all, by translation, ‘King of Righteousness,’ and is then also king of Salem, that is, ‘King of Peace.’
In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having been made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.”—Hebrews 7:1-3.
As mentioned, Melchizedek was a real human, as real as Abraham, with whom he had direct dealings. (Genesis 14:17-20; Hebrews 7:4-10) That being so, Melchizedek must have had parents, a father and a mother, and he might have had offspring. Hence, as a human he had a genealogy, or family tree.
He also had an end of his physical life. At some point Melchizedek died, in line with the apostle Paul’s statement at Romans 5:12, 14. But since we do not know when Melchizedek died and so ceased to serve as priest, in that respect he served without any known end.
-continuing
ReplyDeleteIn Hebrews, Paul made comments about Melchizedek when discussing Jesus Christ’s role as a superior High Priest. Referring to Melchizedek as a type, or pattern, of Jesus in this priestly role, Paul said: “Jesus . . . has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:20) In what sense?
Paul must have realized that the Bible record does not give details about Melchizedek’s family lineage—his ancestors or any possible descendants. That information is just not a matter of Biblical record. From the standpoint of what Paul knew or we know, therefore, Melchizedek could correctly be said to be “without genealogy” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures; American Standard Version), “without table of descent” (W. J. Conybeare), or with “no family tree.”—J. B. Phillips.
In what way was Jesus like that? Granted, we know that Jesus’ Father was Jehovah God and that his human mother was Mary of the tribe of Judah. Still, there was a similarity between Melchizedek and Jesus. How so? Jesus was not born in the tribe of Levi, the tribe for priests in the nation of Israel. No, Jesus had not become a priest through human genealogy.
Neither had Melchizedek, who had not become a priest “according to the law of a commandment depending upon the flesh,” that is, by being born into a priestly tribe and family. (Hebrews 7:15, 16) Rather than becoming a priest through a human father who had himself been a priest, Jesus had “been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.”—Hebrews 5:10.
Further, Jesus did not have any descendants or successors to his priesthood. In this sense too, he was without genealogy. He will eternally carry out his priestly service as a helpful instructor. Paul commented on this perpetual service, saying:
“[Jesus] because of continuing alive forever has his priesthood without any successors. Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.”—Hebrews 7:24, 25.
Our consideration of Paul’s words at Hebrews 7:3 should therefore be more than a mere piece of knowledge to store away in our head.
It should reinforce our appreciation for the loving provision that Jehovah God has made for us to obtain forgiveness of sin everlastingly and for the way he has arranged for us to receive help and guidance perpetually.
Another time about your “contradicting genealogies” statement. Why some people like to strut their ignorance is beyond me? I have an appointment to keep but I will leave you a letter I received from Mr. Casey Ruskin for your viewing pleasure:
ReplyDeleteHi Nick,
Thanks for the note. I've seen many weird arguments against me, and I'll have to add that one to my collection. Yes, I'm an attorney but before I went to law school, I got 2 science degrees, including a graduate science
degree, and I studied evolutionary biology extensively at both the undergraduate and graduate levels at one of the top public universities for biology in the United States (University of California, at San Diego). The
fact that I later went to law school doesn't somehow negate my scientific training.
Look, I'll say nothing in defense of lawyers. I think lawyers do far more harm than good for society. But not all lawyers are evil and not all arguments a lawyer makes are invalid. How does being a lawyer somehow
necessarily negate my arguments? My arguments stand or fall on their merits, not because I am (or am not) a lawyer. To argue otherwise is to commit the
genetic fallacy.
In any case, the arguments you're seeing are from people who have stopped seeking truth and want to dismiss an argument without addressing it. If the person can refute my argument fine. But don't say it's wrong because I'm a
"lawyer." I have too much scientific training to deserve such a non-response.
Sincerely,
Casey
p.s. I'm also not the "spokesman" for Discovery Institute. We have lots of staff and lots of fellows and I'm just one of many people who work at Discovery and do things on behalf of the organization. I wouldn't work there if I didn't think ID was a strong argument, and I wouldn't think ID was a strong argument were it not for my personal scientific training. Thanks
Casey says...
ReplyDelete"Extreme Genetic Convergent Similarity: Common Design or Common Descent?
If common descent is leading to so many bad predictions, why not consider the possibility that biological similarity is instead the result of common design? After all, designers regularly re-use parts, programs, or components that work in different designs (such as using wheels on both cars and airplanes, or keyboards on both computers and cell-phones)."
So he asserts that there ARE genetic similarities but then asserts that a) evolution makes invalid predictions and b) common design explains it better. Which lands me back to square one which is why would a deity create things to make it look like they all had common descent?
In regard to the genealogies, you dodged Matt. 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Also, my point with Hebrews 7 is that Melchizedek is obviously not eternal but yet he does not have a recorded genealogy, therefore, Biblical genealogies aren't necessarily trustworthy. Which was my main point.
>>>>>This is just absurd. Comments like this are typical of someone who just loves to argue.<<<<<
ReplyDeleteComments I made about the usage of the word "clear" are actually simple, basic, philosophical truths. To give an example - the following, uber-deceptive website (which I find ironic that they call JW's deceptive even though they would also be even more deceitful!) states:
"Catholic trinity is not found in the Bible, but the deity of Christ and personality of the Holy Spirit are clearly taught!"
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-catholic-nicene.htm
Do you agree that the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit are "clearly" taught in the Bible? If yes, then your statement stands consistent but you would have to embrace Trinitarianism. If no, then you agree with me.
What if scientists like Dawkins said, "Clearly, God does not exist." Such comments saturate the Internet by your evolutionist camp claiming, "Clearly, there is abundant evidence for macro evolution." What do you say to them?
ReplyDeleteI say to people like Richard Dawkins that he should stop trying to be a metaphysicist. I say to fellow evolutionists that they need to demonstrate this evidence and not just say "evolution is true" especially without presenting evidence. But I have yet to see an evolutionary biologist say "Clearly, evolution is true". I have heard them say "This is why evolution is a better explanation..."
ReplyDeleteThat's a good one! You didn't Google hard enough. Is that what you heard them say huh? This is too much already. I think you need to keep looking for someone who shares a similar hobby. I think I'll end this here. All the best!
ReplyDeleteI actually genuinely do not believe evolution is "clearly right" and I do not agree with those who say it is "clear". I believe evolution is a fact but this only because it accounts for the available data way better. Intelligent design teaching is totally consistent with the fossil record, however the way it explains the fossil record and uses it to argue for evolution is lunacy.
ReplyDeleteJust don't go away mad my friend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAmMcBQavKE
Ahh! Why didn't you say so? Now I follow your logic. You have expressed great faith in your "much better" theories. I'll give you that. Thank you for this vigorous, not so productive, discussion. I know it is hard to say good bye sometimes but here it goes, goodbye.
ReplyDeleteOh, come on! We don't have to say goodbye! I can help you improve your Trinity doctrine challenge blog spot!
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult. I'm trying not to look back. You will be missed. Wait a minute! I still owe you a clear answer on those other Bible questions don't I? Alrighty then! More "lunacy" to come.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting patiently.
ReplyDeleteAre you Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to listen to death metal and black metal?
ReplyDelete