Posted on 10/21/2008 8:28:11 PM PDT by Soliton
Can you reliably establish the probabilities without knowing all the factors that might influence the outcome of the events?
The problem is that of uncertainty. Fundamentalist Christians insist on iron clad certainty. The concept of evolutionary change has elements of uncertainty and is therefore unacceptable.
Although many accept geological evolution, since the human species is involved, the same can not be said for biological evolution.
The concept of Christian evolution, ie the change in the Church over time, can’t be grasped at all.
But, what if someone were to open said box and add/remove more of our radioactive materiel? What if someone were to add/remove some of the decayed materiel from our box? Would our calculations be correct? (It changes the ratio we read, and therefore the time that we get from our calculations in these events, right?)
With radiocarbon dating, opening the box and removing some of the material would not change the results unless you could selectively remove one isotope of carbon and not the other(s).
We know the starting ratio and that is the important factor. The amounts are not very important, as long as there is enough to give a good measurement.
The starting ratio is the atmospheric level. While that level fluctuates a bit, that fluctuation has been corrected for by dating tree-rings and other materials that produce annular markers.
Adding additional carbon to your box would present a problem if it were to be incorporated into the sample itself. The most common samples today are bone, shell, and charcoal and with good sample collection and preparation contamination is not a serious problem. The C13/C12 ratio is very useful for determining such sample problems. If you have what you think is a good piece of charcoal and you get a C13 ratio of -12, you probably have something wrong (it should be much closer to -25).
Take a look at some of the links I posted and they will provide a good overview of the radiocarbon, and to a lesser degree the other radiometric, dating methods.
Only if the correct variables are modeled correctly. You can calculate the odds of getting a particular order from a deck of playing cards as billions (trillions?) to one, yet every deck of cards has an arrangement with that mathematical improbability.
Perhaps the problem is being looked at in that improper manner by the mathematicians, who most likely know little about biology?
Here is a mathematical model that suggests pretty much the opposite of those you cite:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, an online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell.
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
The best illustration of the problem is still the case of flying birds. Flying birds need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
I don't think I would rely on that example too much. Flying has developed independently in birds, insects, and mammals (bats). There is also rudimentary flying ability (gliding) in both fish and squirrels that is a possible precursor to actual flight.
>No, cultures define their moralities. The morality of the Bible evolved over time from tribal brutality to the Golden Rule, yet God supposedly does not evolve. Or do you believe that God realized he was wrong and changed his mind?
Have you even taken a small look at theology? Your question is covered in detail in the books Job and Hebrews. It is also the main point of Mat 5:17-18, where Jesus says of Himself “I’m not here to destroy the Law, but fulfill it.”
The point of the Law, and morality in general, is to show us that we need a savior.
Also note that Jesus says that the Law, the “tribal brutality”, can be summed up into two commands: 1) TO LOVE GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, MIND, AND STRENGTH and 2) TO LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. Notice that this IS the golden rule, so then, how can the “tribal brutality” sum up into the Golden Rule? Simple, look at the underlying concepts instead of the rule itself.
For example, under the “tribal brutality” Law, you were to return stray livestock, even if that animal belonged to your enemy.
Your argument is based on flawed concepts. Obviously a God who wants a relationship with His people MUST, by the very nature of a relationship, ‘change’. Why did God spare Ninevah after sending Jonah? Because they realized they were wrong; Jonah then got a bit miffed at God because he wanted them destroyed and said “I know you are a compassionate God, quick to forgive...”
In other words, God can’t be a “mindless/unalterable force” or a “heartless person” if He wants to have a valid relationship with people. Haven’t you ever done something, or not done something, because a friend asked you?
On the other hand though, God is a righteous God, and a Just God. How can He tolerate our own heartlessness and uncompasion; like the parable of the servant who was forgiven a huge debt who then goes and is rough and unwilling to even hear the pleas of the man who owes him a few dollars. And that’s merely our actions and attitudes towards our fellow humans; what of our idolatry and hurtfulness towards God?
Yeah, I’m the one who doesnt understand theology. Please reconcile these verses with the Golden Rule.
What the Bible says about stoning
For touching Mount Sinai
Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13
For taking “accursed things”
Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26
For cursing or blaspheming
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
For animals (like an ox that gores a human)
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28
For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
For worshipping other gods
If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10
For disobeying parents
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
For witches and wizards
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
For giving your children to Molech
Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2
For breaking the Sabbath
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56
For cursing the king
Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10
“No, cultures define their moralities”
Welcome to the World of Humanist Secularism.
If 51% of the population thinks it’s ok to murder, then it must be okay.
Geez. get a grip, man.
A culture that considered it okay to murder would cease to exist. Cultures develop religions and myths to hold their societies together.
“A culture that considered it okay to murder would cease to exist.”
Oh really...why is that? You think murder is wrong?
What proof do you have that society would cease to exist?
I borrowed Sample’s quote because he says it pretty well:
(from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2112462/posts)
The first reasonable thing to do if you accept their premise would be to kill everyone that disagrees with you politically, especially if they are leftists. They are logically a threat to your well being and life.
Next would be to euthanize all sub-par humans, as they are a drag on society and oneself. Actually “euthanize” implies some humane methodology. It doesn’t really matter how its done if there is no God. Who really cares, just kill them. Of course some inferiors might want to be kept around to serve their new masters. SPARTA!!!
Its flattering that atheists usually pick Christian morals as being “correct”, but its hardly logical from a self-preservation point of view. Survival of the fittest and to hell with the rest.
There is some logic to pretending to be honest, etc. to fool the gullible, but you can’t actually justify being honest if it comes at any ultimate personal expense. After all, no God means that you’re nothing but recycled dung with a very short shelf life.
Awe what a utopia a world without God would be... Logical annihilation without remorse or pity.
Translation: Anyone that disagrees with you is dishonest and has no brains. Right.
Most successful cultures adopted a form of the Golden Rule. Most did so before Christ was born. Spartan culture, by the way, is extinct.
Hmmm. Let us see what Newt really said ...
Q. Do you view evolution as "just a theory" or as the best explanation for how we came to be?
Newt: Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have. But it's changing too. The current tree of life is not anything like a 19th-century Darwinian tree. We're learning a lot about how systems evolve and don't evolve. Cockroaches became successful several hundred million years ago and just stopped evolving.
Q. Where do you come down on teaching intelligent design in schools? Do you think the ruling in the Dover, Pennsylvania, case was appropriate?
Newt: I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy. Francis Collins's new book, The Language of God, is a fine statement that combines a belief in God with a belief in evolution. I do not know enough about the Dover case to critique the judge's decision, but I am generally cautious about unelected judges establishing community standards—that is the duty of elected officials.
Why? Do you believe that God could not have done it?
“Spartan culture, by the way, is extinct.”
Really...thanks for pointing that out.
<100
If you don’t want to debate my points, why respond?
>Yeah, I’m the one who doesnt understand theology.
Yes. Theology is the study of God. Theo (God) + ology (study).
You are straining at gnats, I think, in trying to find fault here instead of trying to gain understanding. However, let’s look at these. (In reverse order.)
For cursing the king. - Well, the King was the one Annointed by God, through the priest, for the political leadership of the people. Remember now that the Israelites didn’t have a king, to start with, and so they petitioned God, through the priest and Prophet Samuel for a king, “so that we may be like other nations”. Samuel told them that having a king, they would be taxed, and harshly treated, and begged them not to go that route. Still they insisted, and so he did his job as priest and mediated between God and man. (This was Israel rejecting the direct leadership of God through the Judges that had been set up.) God then gave them a king, but it was only fair that He should tack on that extra bit; afterall they’d made their bed, they should have to sleep in it.
For breaking the Sabbath - Funny you should mention this one, you see the religious leaders and lawyers of Jesus’s day brought the same thing up. (Luke 6:1-5) See, Jesus and his disciples were picking some grain off the stalks and eating it, after rubbing it so they could eat it. This wasn’t disallowed by the law, but working on the sabbath was, and yet Jesus steps up and says: “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
This was an outrageous thing to say! Claiming that mercy toward the hungry ought to be shown on a day dedicated to God! [/sarcasm] But this happens again, where Jesus heals somebody on the Sababth (Mark 3:1-6). When they complain about it, he replies with: “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill?”
In fact, under the law if you were to find your enemy’s ox out of its stall, perhaps on the road, perhaps in YOUR yard, you were to return it [unharmed] to him.
For giving your children to Molech - Do you realize you’re advocating child sacrifices with this one? (Sacrifice by fire was THE way to make a sacrifice to Molech.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch
(Human sacrifices, of any type are forbidden in the law.)
For witches and wizards - God already set up a system for spiritual communication with Him, so any medium was operating outside of that. Also, concerning magic, just who is being worshiped there, even if it is only yourself it is idolatry. (Making this a subset of an already capitally punished crime.)
For disobeying parents - You’ve never heard your parent’s say: “I brought you into this world, I can take you out if it!!”? Israeli parents are given this right, under the law, though to my knowledge it was never used.
For worshipping other gods - The books of the Law are a contract between God and the Israelites, it’s for them to be His people, and Him to be their God. What happens on a breach of contract?
For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night - This is similar to both the “worshiping other gods” and the “stoning disobedient children” ones. You see, marriage was a contract, and still is, witness California trying to [re]define the terms therein. What this amounts to is defrauding, let’s say you went to the store to buy a brand-new computer, and you open it up and inside you see a beat-up obviously used computer. Would you be angry? Now, you could always decide to keep the computer, but you have, even now, the legal recourse to get recompense for false-advertising.
For animals (like an ox that gores a human) - There are documented cases where the eating of meat is a trigger for violent tendencies... take the wolverine for instance. If you had one, and it ever got hold of some bloody meat, it would never be ‘safe’ again. (Though they aren’t particularly ‘safe’ anyway.) But what is your problem here? Honestly, this is reaffirming that human life is better and more valued than mere animal life. (Not that any life isn’t amazing and doesn’t glorify God anyway.)
For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough) - The scream here was pure legal semantics. (Like the differentiations between sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape in our own legal system.) It indicated a forced and unwilling woman; not only that, but who could stand by and listen to a woman screaming for help like that and still call himself a man?
For cursing or blaspheming - Again, you’re looking at a legal document describing the contract between God and His people. It’s like having an employer that puts in the contract that you can’t talk about what you’re working on to people outside the company if you’re working in R&D.
For taking “accursed things” - The Israelites were entering a land wherein the former native peoples were a sort that practiced things like orgies as part of a fertility ritual, and child sacrifices (see Molech). God was trying to keep His people from defiling themselves.
For touching Mount Sinai - And did you happen to read about the times the Israelites refused to go near to where God was, the tent of the tabernacle, and begged Moses to set up a priesthood so that they would not have to interact with God on a more personal level?
So, I should say it certainly looks like you’re nitpicking things here. Why? Is there something wrong with your relationship with God?
Do they really think the power of God stops at the Casino door? Why would the randomness inherent in generation of genetic variation be any different?
Please name a culture in which murder isn't illegal
Putting aside the question of whether murder is morally wrong, people can use their reason to look at what would happen to a society that does not forbid murder. That would be a society where there would be little stability or security for anyone other than those who had enough wealth or power to protect themselves from the murderous actions of others. Can you envision a functional society where murder of other members of that society went unpunished? Even the most barbarous of cultures punish unauthorized killings of their members.
Succesful societies have, over time, come to more or less the same basic rules- no killing and no stealing. These rules are necessary to prevent an all-against-all social setting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.