RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: AF Dave Explains Cain's Wife, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,02:32   

AF Dave Explains Cain's Wife

Many people ask the question, "If the the Book of Genesis is true, who did Cain marry?"

It's a very good question and there is a very good, scientific answer.  Before I do that, let me say thanks for stopping by and if you want to hear more, check for other "AFDave" articles on this blog or on my own blog (airdave.blogspot.com).  I spend more time here, though.

The short answer is that with no other information than what the Bible gives, we have to assume CAIN MARRIED ONE OF HIS SISTERS.

This raises some obvious questions like "Huh??" and "Yuk!" and "What about biological deformities?" and the like ...

My answer comes from (surprise!;) ... www.answersingenesis.com ... you can find the whole article here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp, but I will extract some of it for you ...

Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.

There is a very sound genetic reason for such laws that is easy to understand. Every person has two sets of genes that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes, and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other—or perhaps someone’s nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone’s jaw is a little out of shape—and so on. Let’s face it, the main reason we call each other normal is because of our common agreement to do so!

The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents. Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects.

However, Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6ff, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God’s approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18–20).12 (Also, there were plenty of people on the Earth by now, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,03:36   

Since it would be easy for "god" to create a partner for Cain, we should assume that there's nothing morally wrong with banging one's sister (or mother, or daughter) as long as deformed children are not born  :D

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,04:24   

Once again, dave: your answer (although it's not yours, you're just parroting every known attempt to explain this) is, like I said, quite adequate- for religion.
It is not, however, scientific.
In a scientific hypothesis, you cannot explain the flaws in your assumptions by making even wilder (and unsupportable) assumptions: that makes the whole hypothesis a joke. So, you may argue about a supposed "genetic perfection" that would make incest possible then (although, if I may add, Cain was born after your entity put a "curse" upon the world, furious that its children- what? Ate an apple it said not to? Sheesh) But there is simply no way to scientifically support that.
For the same reasons, I could explain how your selective reading of your inerrant book failed to see that Cain knew his wife after he fled to Nod, and also that he built a city for just him, his wife, and his son.
Then, of course, you'd check your sites and come back with the pre-cut answers: that Cain was already married, and "knew" here means "had sex" (although his wife was never mentioned before) -and also that the Hebrew word translated here as "city" actually means "small town" that could hold as little as 100 people (which makes you wonder why these people, obviously brothers of Cain, were exiled with him- and, BTW, why don't they tell us what the ancient Hebrew word translated as "knew" in the case of Cain's wife actually meant, too?)
You see, it's all pointless. Assumptions, assumptions, and then more assumptions to explain them- and, the more you make, the more impossible it is to relate them with observations of the real world.
As a logical excercise that helps you defend your religious dogma, all this works fine- and, in fact, that's how it was meant to be used.
As a scientific hypothesis, it totally sucks. Sorry.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,04:39   

Quote (hehe @ April 29 2006,08:36)
Since it would be easy for "god" to create a partner for Cain, we should assume that there's nothing morally wrong with banging one's sister (or mother, or daughter) as long as deformed children are not born  :D

Yes, it seems that, in the universal and eternal moral codes this entity has set from the dawn of time, incest is just fine, as long as no offspring is produced nowadays.

Now it's my mind that whirls with implications...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,06:18   

Well Faid, as I said on another thread, there are many people coming over to the AIG position, many of them who earned PH.D's at secular universities and were also skeptics like yourself.  Maybe you should talk with them.  And if this does not convince you, maybe you should set up your own "Ministry" to convince people of you and your fellow skeptics beliefs.  Maybe you could get invitations to churches if you were convincing enough.  Rent a sports stadium and have big conferences and promote your view in a big way!  This is America ... go for it!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,07:12   

Why so jumpy alluva sudden? What happened to your thick skin?

Quote
Well Faid, as I said on another thread, there are many people coming over to the AIG position, many of them who earned PH.D's at secular universities and were also skeptics like yourself.  Maybe you should talk with them.

Maybe I should... But now I'm talking with you.
Quote
And if this does not convince you

A stand-alone Argumentum ad Verecundiam (especially a highly disputable one) never convinces me.
Quote
maybe you should set up your own "Ministry" to convince people of you and your fellow skeptics beliefs.

Indoctrination is not my thing, thanks.
Quote
Maybe you could get invitations to churches if you were convincing enough.  Rent a sports stadium and have big conferences and promote your view in a big way!  This is America ... go for it!


...

...Um, you are aware that you're babbling now, right? Relax, man. Like I said, I have no problem with you using all these arguments to defend your dogma in theological discussions. That's why they were made. Just don't try to pass it off as science. That's all I'm saying.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,09:46   

Quote
When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect.

I could swear that I read somewhere that Adam was missing a rib ...

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,10:11   

Since the book of Genesis is not true, the question is entirely moot.

AFDave, haven't you noticed, that Genesis 2 4:25 is a different creation story, which contradicts the one in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 1:3? In Genesis 1, God creates all the animals ( verses 24-25 ) and then creates man and woman (vv 26-27). In Genesis 2, God creates a man (v 7), then creates all the animals afterwards (18-20) and finally creates a woman from the man's rib (21-22).

So Dave, did God create the animals before or after man? Have fun trying to explain that one :)

Keywords: P-document, J-document.

BTW Dave, have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh? Or the Eddas? There are other fun myths out there as well, you don't have to stick to just one.

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,11:16   

Quote
Yes, it seems that, in the universal and eternal moral codes this entity has set from the dawn of time, incest is just fine, as long as no offspring is produced nowadays.


Yes, of course. Moreover, since this "god" was supposed to forbid incest later, it either proves that she is a moral relativist, or the Bible is not inerrant  :D

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,11:46   

I've met God!  And She's black!!

:D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,11:48   

Yes, I've read many of the myths and they help confirm my theory that the Christian Bible is inerrant ... we'll cover that under Point 9 of my "Creator God Hypothesis".  I have also studied the different sections of Genesis and, as you can probably guess, have a different theory than you which I believe has excellent support.

You make a good point, however, that I should add some more information into my hypothesis between Points 2 & 3 which specifically addresses the Cain's wife issue.  I did mention that my hypothesis is a draft and I am open to additions and changes as they become necessary.

Faid, don't be offended by my joke about starting your own "ministry" ... by the way, I do have your detailed questions from yesterday (?) saved and will answer them as I have time.

I appreciate all the comments ... see you Monday!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,12:04   

Biblical literalism is transparently illogical and ultimately boring as actual debate.  Why has AFDave come here to parrot the AiG script to us?  Is it a ministry of some sort?  

As someone arguing as a supernaturalist, Avocationist was much more interesting.  Too bad she fled AtBC. :)

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,14:01   

Quote
Faid, don't be offended by my joke about starting your own "ministry" ... by the way, I do have your detailed questions from yesterday (?) saved and will answer them as I have time.


...Offended? *sigh* No, dave, I'm not offended. I'm sure you agree with me there's no reason to.

You can answer my questions in your own time... Proving the impossibility of Cain's wife is not among my priorities. :)
After all that we've told you, however, it's important to understand that we'll be discussing theological issues, not scientific ones.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,18:41   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,16:48)
I have also studied the different sections of Genesis and, as you can probably guess, have a different theory than you which I believe has excellent support.

Does your "different theory" say that animals were created after man, as it says in genesis 2, or before man, as it says in Genesis 1? One or the other.

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,21:32   

Note how Dave ran away from my points   ;)

  
secondclass



Posts: 9
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,09:06   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,11:18)
Well Faid, as I said on another thread, there are many people coming over to the AIG position, many of them who earned PH.D's at secular universities and were also skeptics like yourself.  Maybe you should talk with them.

Can you point me to that thread?  Did you name names?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,10:05   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,16:48)
they help confirm my theory that the Christian Bible is inerrant

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm

A few more inerrancies to explain away.....

I particularly like the Easter ones..

When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick.

When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick.

At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point.

If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13).

So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick.

Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15).


--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,11:14   

Biblical contradictions by category

It even quotes the verses instead of just listing them.  I don't think Dave will care - he's an adept at Doublethink.

Queue: Will the real Carol Clouser please stand up? :D

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,17:53   

Here I am Unmark.

Afdave's "explanation" of the Cain's wife issue is obviously incorrect, as anyone who knows the real (Hebrew) Bible will readily confirm. The Bible does not make the prohibition against incest contingent on deformed offspring. Incest is forbidden, period. And it makes no sense to postulate that God would organize his world in a manner that compelled violations of his own commandments.

The correct explanation is that the Hebrew Bible neither states nor implies that Adam was the first human being. During the sixth "era" (not day!;) the Bible tells us that God provided for the appearance of "humans" (Ha-adam, in Hebrew) not "Adams". When Adam appears, a sizeable population of human beings already existed. This also explains why Cain went about building a "city". There were enough folks around, just in his location, to populate a city!

Unmark, I don't comment on so called "new" testament issues, since it concerns me not in the least. I will leave that to Afdave.

One other important point here. Pay attention, Afdave. The so called "old" testament (OT) was created by Jews, for Jews, and is about Jews. We are flattered that, after many centuries of being the only people to cherish it, much of the world has fallen deeply in love with the document. But the text is OURS. We claim OWNERSHIP and EXPERTISE. We transmitted the oral tradition to go with it from generation to generation, until it was recorded (in the Talmud and Midrash). What Christians have done is hijack the text, mistranslate it, distort it, misunderstand it, add to it, and finally subtract from it. In the process they have made the OT look silly with a multitude of contradictions, none of which appear in the original. Unbelievable, but this is the historical truth, admitted to even by (knowledgeable) Christians.

So if you want real, honest and correct answers to issues pertaining to the OT, you need to consult the true experts and rightful owners. You know who they are. It is not Afdave and his ilk.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,18:08   

afdave, I should point out that Carol is spelling-challenged, scientifically illiterate, prone to lying, deception and malice, and generally clueless about the Tanakh.

Other than that she's probably a fine person, but she's certainly an embarrassing faux scholar.

Ignore her.  We usually do.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,23:51   

No no, answer her.  I want to see afdave and carol have an argument.  It would be interesting...

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,00:54   

Quote
It is not Afdave and his ilk.
My goodness ... I've been called ILK again ... that's twice now!  Carol, I hope we can become friends even if we never end up agreeing.  I'm glad to find out that you are Jewish because I don't have many Jewish acquaintances here in Kansas City.  I love hearing what Jewish people have to say though because I hold the Jewish nation and people in very high esteem.  
Quote
During the sixth "era" (not day! the Bible tells us that God provided for the appearance of "humans" (Ha-adam, in Hebrew) not "Adams". When Adam appears, a sizeable population of human beings already existed. This also explains why Cain went about building a "city". There were enough folks around, just in his location, to populate a city!
Can you tell me what your basis would be for not reading the Hebrew word 'yom' as a literal day?  In all my study of the Hebrew scriptures, it appears to me that the word 'yom' is almost always one, 24 hour day.  My opinion is that some people think it is NOT a 24 hour day in Genesis only to accomodate what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence of the supposed long ages of evolutionary geology.

Faid-- You raise some very good points.  To answer them broadly, I have found that the difficulties clear up if I take away my 20th century presuppositions and frame of reference.  If we acknowledge the possibility that life was VERY different in the beginning, things become a lot clearer.  First, the Bible is very clear that the ante-diluvian patriarchs lived very long lives.  There are several independent lines of evidence supporting this, which I will get into in proper sequence.  Josephus tells us that the old Jewish tradition is that Adam had  33 sons and 23 daughters.  Josephus also tells us that one of Cain's descendants had 77 children by two wives.  (Antiq., Book 1, Ch. 2) Wow, those were tough women!  My hypothesis (short version) on this topic is that Adam and Eve and their near descendants were vigorous, model specimens of humanity--Ken and Barbie, if you will.  They probably had ZERO genetic defects and quite possibly were taller and stronger than modern humans. (notice that this is opposite of modern evolutionary speculation, but consistent with the evidence we see of accumulating deleterious mutations over time) If Cain was like his father, he had many children and they in turn had many more children.  My hypothesis asserts rapid population growth in the ante-diluvian world.  The Bible does not state that Enoch was Cain's firstborn. If he was not, there could have been MANY children and grandchildren BEFORE Cain and his clan moved to Nod.  Even if Enoch was his firstborn, we do no violence to the text by proposing that there could have been a 50-100 year time span between having Enoch and building the city.  Remember, 100 years was only a little over 10% of their entire lifespans.  As for why the writer use the word 'yada' (translated 'knew') instead of 'had sex with,' I could ask this question ... when you are at dinner parties, do you say to your friends, "Well, when my wife and I first met, we had dinner, went to a movie, then went to my house and had sex."  Probably, you don't talk about your private affairs, but if you do, you probably use some polite euphemism such as "we went to my house and 'made love.'  Of course if you are like 'hehe' you might have used the term 'banged.' I know this does not answer everything yet, but if you stick with me, I think you are going to be amazed at how clear everything becomes.

Rilke's GD-- Thanks!  And thanks also for your comments on my other thread.  I have taken yours and other helpful comments I received and clarified the structure of my "Creator God Hypothesis."  I want as many constructive comments on the structure and rules of my little debate as possible before moving ahead with additional points.

Midnight Voice and UnMark-- those are very easy examples to explain, but they are not my focus right now.  If you want a quick answer, Google search "Christian Research Institute" with the 'Bible Answer Man', Hank Hannegraf.

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first?  Animals or Man.  No time now ... stay tuned!

hehe -- 'banging' ones sister apparently was fine with God in the beginning if you were married to her.  Again, there was no prohibition against this that I know of until the time of Moses by which time accumulated mutations would have posed a problem to close marriages with close kin.
Quote
I've met God!  And She's black!!

And her name is Condi ...!  Condi for president in '08!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,02:42   

Afdave,

We are friends and "ilk" is not a word that connotes otherwise.

As far as "yom" is concerned, you really need to read up on that and many other Hebrew-related issues. I think I have already recommended one great book to you (Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF) and there are others. I will not get into the whole analysis here. Suffice it to say that "yom" is used in three different ways in the Hebrew Bible, quite often in the sense of "a period of time characterized by some development or feature". This cannot be decided by vote, but by context. As an example of "yom" used as "era" even in the context of numerals consider Hosea 6:2 (I think, doing this from memory right now).

Hope this helps.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,02:43   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)
Faid-- You raise some very good points.  To answer them broadly, I have found that the difficulties clear up if I take away my 20th century presuppositions and frame of reference.  If we acknowledge the possibility that life was VERY different in the beginning, things become a lot clearer.  First, the Bible is very clear that the ante-diluvian patriarchs lived very long lives.  There are several independent lines of evidence supporting this, which I will get into in proper sequence.  Josephus tells us that the old Jewish tradition is that Adam had  33 sons and 23 daughters.  Josephus also tells us that one of Cain's descendants had 77 children by two wives.  (Antiq., Book 1, Ch. 2) Wow, those were tough women!  My hypothesis (short version) on this topic is that Adam and Eve and their near descendants were vigorous, model specimens of humanity--Ken and Barbie, if you will.  They probably had ZERO genetic defects and quite possibly were taller and stronger than modern humans. (notice that this is opposite of modern evolutionary speculation, but consistent with the evidence we see of accumulating deleterious mutations over time) If Cain was like his father, he had many children and they in turn had many more children.  My hypothesis asserts rapid population growth in the ante-diluvian world.  The Bible does not state that Enoch was Cain's firstborn. If he was not, there could have been MANY children and grandchildren BEFORE Cain and his clan moved to Nod.  Even if Enoch was his firstborn, we do no violence to the text by proposing that there could have been a 50-100 year time span between having Enoch and building the city.  Remember, 100 years was only a little over 10% of their entire lifespans.  As for why the writer use the word 'yada' (translated 'knew';) instead of 'had sex with,' I could ask this question ... when you are at dinner parties, do you say to your friends, "Well, when my wife and I first met, we had dinner, went to a movie, then went to my house and had sex."  Probably, you don't talk about your private affairs, but if you do, you probably use some polite euphemism such as "we went to my house and 'made love.'  Of course if you are like 'hehe' you might have used the term 'banged.' I know this does not answer everything yet, but if you stick with me, I think you are going to be amazed at how clear everything becomes.

It's only clear if you want to believe it is clear, dave. I have bolded every aspect of your explanation that is an unsupportable assumption (often to explain other assumptions), and also underlined the parts that seem unfounded compared to modern scientific knowledge -or even compared to the actual text. There's not much left, is it?

But like I said: That does not necessarily make them logically wrong. They can work as theological arguments, that help you defend a position of inerrancy of the bible. They CANNOT be used as scientific arguments to establish an "inerrant bible" hypothesis. I hope we agree on this.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:41   

Quote
hehe -- 'banging' ones sister apparently was fine with God in the beginning if you were married to her.  Again, there was no prohibition against this that I know of until the time of Moses by which time accumulated mutations would have posed a problem to close marriages with close kin.


Thank you for accepting that "god" is a moral relativist. Why shouldn't we be? ;-)

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:53   

hehe-- I do appreciate your light view of life ... I might disagree with you about God being a relativist, but gotta love your wit! Cheers!

Faid--  It's only unsupported HERE in this post.  I can't take the time or space right now to support it all.  But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:14   

afdave, Carol claims you are totally wrong in your interpretation. Why don't you and Carol battle it out a bit, so that the rest of us unholy heathens can have a chuc... eh.. learning experience?

So, who is right, you, or Carol? You cannot both be right, and both claim to be speaking for God. Who must we believe then?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:39   

Quote (guthrie @ May 01 2006,04:51)
No no, answer her.  I want to see afdave and carol have an argument.  It would be interesting...

Godzilla vs. Mothra?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:42   

And afDave goes for the jugular:
Quote
Can you tell me what your basis would be for not reading the Hebrew word 'yom' as a literal day?  In all my study of the Hebrew scriptures, it appears to me that the word 'yom' is almost always one, 24 hour day.  My opinion is that some people think it is NOT a 24 hour day in Genesis only to accomodate what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence of the supposed long ages of evolutionary geology.
I'm impressed: he's already managed to nail Carol.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:03   

Incest is all the rage in the bible.  Nothing new here.

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:17   

Dave, you did not address the point again. Is incest objectively immoral or not? (If it is forbidden for mere utilitarian reasons, it is not immoral.)

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:53)
Faid--  It's only unsupported HERE in this post.  I can't take the time or space right now to support it all.  But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

That's cute -- one of Kem Ham's favourite attacks on evidence from deep time (fossils, geological record, etc) is the idiotic "Were you there?  No, but God was."  Sees to me that since you're such a fan of Ken Ham's work, you'd realise that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  You have no earthly way of proving that the human race has appreciably more harmful genetic mutations today than 6,000 years ago. Were you there?

Claiming that harmful genetic mutations have increased to the point of reducing our lifespan to 10% of what it used to be 6,000 years ago is about as sensible as claiming the speed of light is a fraction of what it used to be (in an attempt to get over the embarrassing fact that we can see galaxies which are billions of light years away).

Scientists have catalogued many genetic mutations in the human genome.  None of them has come close to being responsible for a dramatic reduction in lifespan (without being accompanied by some form of gross mental or physical abnormality).  Embarassingly enough for you, though, is that we *do* share many of the same genetic mutations as our cousins the chimps and gorillas, and in such a way that all-but proves we share a common ancestry with our fellow great apes.

If you don't believe me, have a look at this post on endogenous retroviruses.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,06:39   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:53)
hehe-- I do appreciate your light view of life ... I might disagree with you about God being a relativist, but gotta love your wit! Cheers!

Faid--  It's only unsupported HERE in this post.  I can't take the time or space right now to support it all.  But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

Besides his joking, hehe actually has a point. According to the eternal laws set by god from the beginning of time, if a man has a vasectomy, is it ok to marry his sister? I ask you in all seriousness- because that's what this theory for Cain's wife seems to imply.

As for not supporting your view here, then you haven't explained anything yet, right? Untill you do, however, think about this: If you weren't trying with all your heart to prove that the bible is inerrant, would you ever be so eager to assume that, in this paragraph:

Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

A hundred years have passed between the first and the second sentence? Why does it seem so plausible now, except that you want to believe it?

You may not wish to see it, but everything you do is reverse reasoning. You feel the bible has to be inerrant, so cain's wife must have been his sister. It must have been ok to marry his sister, so human beings must have had some kind of "genetic perfection" whatever that was. There must have been many people for him to build a city for, so that one space on a page, between "she bare Enoch" and "and he built a city" must have been 100 years long (making the book that explains the universe one of the most misleading documents ever).

Would you believe any of these wild assumptions if they were made about any other book than the bible? And yet, it is all your arguments that are like that in your hypothesis.

I only hope that some day you'll be bold enough to admit to yourself that your faith comes from your feelings, not your logic. It has nothing to do with logic.

That is not necessarily a bad thing; on the contrary. It's just that it does not help trying to use logic alone to defend it. Great philosophers have failed to do so in the past: Your faith is not science, and it cannot compete with science in its field. And it shouldn't have to.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:38   

Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Let me just show you one thing here ... the plain reading of this is very clear that there was SOME time lag b/t baring Enoch and building the city ... do you see this?  Babies don't build cities.  Grown up men do.  How much time elapsed?  I cannot tell, but we are unjustified in saying categorically that this is definitely an example of error.  Why can we not allow the writer some license to hit high points in a historical narrative?  This is very common practice.  Again, though, I am not saying anything yet about the Bible being proven to be true.  At this point in the argument, that is an open question.

As for my supposed pre-committment to the Bible, I don't know how else to tell you that I am doing as best as any human can of NOT being biased.  To tell you the truth, I didn't care a whit about the Bible growing up even though I was force fed it with a firehose.  I cared about the normal things boys care about ... fast cars, fast girls, etc.  But in college, I began to search for ultimate truth, and I tell you ... it could have gone either way.  I was not exactly a compliant child (actually kind of a rebel), so I did not have any great love for my parents belief system.  I do have an exercise that I want to propose on my other thread which I hope will at least allow us to agree on the ground rules for the debate.

hehe-- Your question has only become a question in modern times with the advent of vasectomies, but I would have to guess that God's opinion would be that your scenario would be OK with Him from one angle (absolute moral code), but not OK from another.  I would guess that He would say not to do it because you would no doubt get into failed vasectomies, etc. with the resulting deformities.

I've never been asked that question!  It's a funny one!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:00   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)
Quote

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first?  Animals or Man.  No time now ... stay tuned!

How much time could you possibly need to answer such a simple question? I'll help you out and give you three options:

A) Genesis 1 is correct (animals before man ) and Genesis 2 is wrong.

B) Genesis 2 is correst (man before animals) and Genesis 1 is wrong.

C) The man and woman created in Genesis 1 are not the same as the man and woman created in Genesis 2 (traditional attempt at reconciliation, leading to e.g. Lilith legend), further details to follow.

Now all you have to do is type A, B or C and then explain in more detail later. Easy, eh?

  
hehe



Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:26   

OK, Dave, so not every "god"'s commandment establishes a moral rule. Some are simply utilitarian.

Given that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament (unless you keep kosher and follow all 600+ rules of the OT, you will agree with me  :p ), and NT has no rule against incest, incest is OK if precautions are taken  :D

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:26   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,12:38)
hehe-- Your question has only become a question in modern times with the advent of vasectomies, but I would have to guess that God's opinion would be that your scenario would be OK with Him from one angle (absolute moral code), but not OK from another.  I would guess that He would say not to do it because you would no doubt get into failed vasectomies, etc. with the resulting deformities.

Incest derived offspring can be perfectly normal. There have been cases in the past where family inbreeding took place over several generations without any serious problems.  Sure, there is a much higher risk of abnormalities but it's not a certainty.  With the right genetic screening, it will one day be possible to reduce the risks to a minimum. Does that make incest right?

Anyway, the whole discussion is pointless.  If God said it was okay then and not now, then what other explanation do you need?  After all, God said it was okay for Joshua to commit genocide a number of times while conquering Israel, not to mention condoning the murder of thousands of babies, children, mothers and fathers, and the rape of their surviving virgin daughters.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:51   

Quote
Incest derived offspring can be perfectly normal.

Haven't a good many island populations of whatever been seeded by a single pregnant female? Maybe inbreeding increases the odds of doubling bad traits, but it works the same with good traits. Maybe the resulting population is even stronger as a result (strong traits reinforce, bad traits that get reinforced die out).

Humans are willing to have plenty of disadvantageous characteristics so long as we avoid expressing them any more often than necessary. Trading one extraordinarily capable person for one congenital loser is considered a Bad Trade. But that's social, not biological.

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:35   

This is why there isn't much good Xtian porn about; all they want to see are brothers and sisters going at it and virgins being gang-raped by angels.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:50   

AFdave, tell us how some of the characters in the bible were able to live to be as old as 700 years.  

Bonus question - why is it that the only people who ever lived to be 700 or even 200 years old are all in the bible and no one has pulled this off since then.

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:12   

Hey, no offense, but I'm going to let you guys knock yourselves out with the virgins and the angels and I'm going to hop back over to my main topic of interest on my other thread here ... you only have so many hours in a day ... go to the Christian Research Institute (Hank Hannegraf) if you really want to sort all this out ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:31   

So you are running away Afdave... alas...

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,12:38)
Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Let me just show you one thing here ... the plain reading of this is very clear that there was SOME time lag b/t baring Enoch and building the city ... do you see this?  Babies don't build cities.  Grown up men do.  

Dave, I'm gonna let you find out yourself what's wrong with what you just posted.

It shouldn't be that hard.

Don't feel embarrassed when you do, however: I dont believe you're a fool or anything. I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,16:29   

Oops! It was Cain, not Enoch that built the city ... good eyes Faid!  You must be a doctor or something ...

Now why again does that matter?  Are you concerned about the fact that he built a city for only 3 people.  Did I not clear that up already?  I plan on giving a lot more detail as I walk through this whole thing on the other thread.

Quote
I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Now why do you want to insult me like that?  I was starting to like you!  Naaa ... I still do ... and I bet you make reading errors once in a while yourself.

Have a good night!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,17:30   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,21:29)
Oops! It was Cain, not Enoch that built the city ... good eyes Faid!  You must be a doctor or something ...

Now why again does that matter?  Are you concerned about the fact that he built a city for only 3 people.  Did I not clear that up already?  I plan on giving a lot more detail as I walk through this whole thing on the other thread.

Quote
I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Now why do you want to insult me like that?  I was starting to like you!  Naaa ... I still do ... and I bet you make reading errors once in a while yourself.

Have a good night!

That was not meant as an insult, afdave. Sorry if you saw it that way.

Think of it this way: A man is madly in love with a woman. There is plenty of evidence, however, that the woman is cheating on him. Friends see the obvious, and tell him. But he just does not listen. He disregards telltale signs and proof that, if he'd seen in any other woman, He'd label her "cheater" from a mile away. He looks, but he doesn't see.
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool -he's just in love.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,17:36   

Carol, given the rigor of several of your past posts, there was some discussion about whether the person using your moniker was actually you.  I guess that settles the debate. :)  Regarding yom: would not the Fourth Commandment be somewhat nonsensical were not a literal day implied in Creation?  I swear I asked this once on PT directly, but I don't recall if an answer was offered.

Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?  It makes sense, it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible that I'm aware of: why the inane illogic to support incest and a bunch of unsupportable hunches?

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,19:08   

UnMark,

What Genesis does is take the history of the evolution of the universe and life on earth and divide it into seven overlapping periods of development (not presented in chronological order). A good argument can be made that these are not arbitrarily chosen just to get to the number seven, but that they are based on some sense of what is most important to human beings and their perception of their place and role in the universal scheme of things. Perhaps you and I, if asked to list what we thought was most important to us in the history of the universe, would come up with a different set of developments. Be that as it may, much scholarly and theological discussion has already been invested in shedding light on this matter but it is only tangentially related to your question.

The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,19:54   

Quote (UnMark @ May 01 2006,22:36)
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?  It makes sense, it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible that I'm aware of: why the inane illogic to support incest and a bunch of unsupportable hunches?

Most young-earthers would argue that if we are not all descended from Adam and Eve then we have not all inherited  Original Sin meaning that there was no need for Jesus to die on the cross since we did not need to be "saved".  In other words, if the events in Genesis did not literally happen the way it was written then there's no point to the rest of the Bible.

To them the issue of inerrancy is like a house of cards. If you pull on one of them, their whole building comes crashing around them, leaving them with nothing.  

That's why they are so dogmatic about the issue of origins. If a young-earther can't find a way to reconcile their faith with a non-literal Genesis, then they're never going to accept anything science has to offer in this area since it directly contradicts their beliefs.

There are old-earthers who still believe in Biblical inerrancy--the Reasons to Believe outfit and the infamous David Heddle spring to mind--but they are far fewer in number than young-earthers and feel the squeeze from both sides--from the young-earth creationists who hate how they mangle the literal meaning of the Genesis text to get past a young Earth and global flood, and from the rest of Christianity who feel no need to treat early Genesis as a historical document.

Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,01:03   

Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)
Quote
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool - he's just in love.
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.  Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."  Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Pardon me if my answers are very short over here ... I will be spending most of my time over on my other thread and would welcome your comments there.  I will be discussing the First Point in my Hypothesis today.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,01:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)
Quote
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool - he's just in love.
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.  Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."  Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Pardon me if my answers are very short over here ... I will be spending most of my time over on my other thread and would welcome your comments there.  I will be discussing the First Point in my Hypothesis today.

Typical guy: all talk, no action.  You keep promising data, but you never deliver.  In that sense you are exactly like every other creationist we've seen.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,03:48   

Quote
here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.

This sort of statement desperately calls for posting that wonderful cartoon where the scientist says "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?" and the creationist says "Here are the conclusions. What facts can we find to support them?"

And here we have afdave saying "First, assume your conclusions. THEN, go out and find any *possible* support for them. If you can't find any, you just aren't trying, because the conclusions are assumed, and can't be wrong."

And RGD wants data? There we have it: doctrinal certainties optionally backed by selective misrepresentations. Optional because since the doctrine is certain, nothing else is particularly relevant anyway.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,03:54   

Quote
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.

I'm really sorry you had to go through all that- it's not something I'd wish for anyone. Now, apologizing in advance for any discomfort this reminiscence might give you, can you tell me if you remember how you felt then? How you saw things? If so, are the thought processes and the feelings you have now for the inerrancy of the bible more comparable to "I examine all the evidence and conclude my girl loves me", or "I know my girl loves me, and no evidence I've seen has convinced me otherwise"?
Those two lines of thought are not identical... But I see you've already answered that. See below.
Quote
Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."

Certainly it's possible with all of us- who can delve into the minds of every man? However, looking at the big picture, there is a crucial difference. I am not emotionally charged towards one side; I have no reason to. I do not, for instance, think my immortal soul might be in danger if I do not accept the inerrancy of the bible.
Or that my moral worldview, and everything I hold sacred, will collapse if my beliefs turn out to be wrong. Making up my mind, or changing it, has no world-crumbling consequences. I'm not the spokesperson of all the powers that be; I'm just a man.

(Oh, by the way, of course I believe that all inconsistencies in the bible must be cleared without doubt before I accept it's inerrant- that's what inerrancy means, after all. "Inerrancy" is not a relative term. What would you say to someone that told you Jesus was "mostly" without sin? See? Now, you feel that way because you believe that a Savior without sin is an absolute; well, the Inerrancy of the bible is an even greater one -logically speaking, not theologically. Either it's true, or it's not.)

So, having no moral or spiritual bond towards any side, I can examine the evidence first, then accept the side they point to. But it seems you think this is not right:
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Dave, this is exactly what science must not do.
Well, that's not something anyone should ever do, I think, but let's stick to science for now... Assuming your theory is right, and then trying to come up with all the data supporting it, and disprove all other data whatever the cost, can eventually help you "prove" just about anything: From cold fusion and Lysenko's genetics to martian canals (or martian face) and hollow earth.
In fact, most (if not all) of the major blunders in the history of science had this kind of reasoning as a starting point: Most of the great breakthroughs came by people who looked at the data first and then came up with successful theories to explain them, after years of hard work- or, sometimes, after a sudden epiphany.
Do you have a reason to think that the Lord walks with you when you follow the first path, and scorns you when you follow the other?
Now, I know what you are going to say: That's the evolutionists who do that, who turn away from the facts, and if you read this book etc.
I'm sorry, there is just no easy way to say this: That's simply a lie.
It's not your lie, however: Neither is it your fault.
Like I said, I do not beleive you are a liar for jesus: I just believe that you, like many others, unfortunately, has been systematically misled by people who are.
People who try to twist reality and distort facts to promote their views- and, often, make a buck in the process; people who cannot claim ignorance for their actions, and their deliberate misleading, with their books and tapes and sites and "museums", can only be attributed to malice.
And people like you, who turn to them seeking evidence that would validate their worldview- you are their favorite prey.
I only hope that, when you start posting all your proof for a young earth, you will let us demonstrate that to you.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,04:15   

AFDavesays
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  


For the last two months there has been a wingnut posting over on the TheologyWeb Natural Science page, arguing for Geocentricity (i.e. the sun, planets, and stars all rotate around a stationary Earth).

This Bible Inerrancy proponent bases his belief on passages such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

Quote
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.


and Joshua 10:13:

Quote
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


Many people have patiently explained the copious scientific evidence that shows this is wrong, from satellite launches that must take into account the Earth's rotational velocity, to observed stellar parallax, to the measurable wobble in the Earth's rotational axis caused by the mass displacement of the tides.  The Bible Inerrancy guy refuses to listen to any evidence - according to him it's everyone else who has a "closed mind".

How do you feel about that bit of Bible inerrancy? Do you think the whole universe revolves around a stationary Earth?  Why or why not?

I don't mean to distract you from your task of publishing your scientific evidence for YEC, but think about this on the side and answer when you can.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,04:30   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,11:18)
This is America ... go for it!

Ummm ... no ... this is not America.

This is the internet.

Many of us who are reading your guff aren't (gasp! ) in or even from America. Imagine that!

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,04:36   

Chuckle. Assume the bible is inerrant, then research this assumption at a Christian bookstore. Works for dave...

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,05:45   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06)
You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)

No, Dave, you're the same kind of YECer we've seen a million times before. The same lack of logic or debating skills ("absolutely unsupportable assertion here. More later."—but then the "more" fails ever to arrive).

Your assertions are entertaining purely for their utter inanity, nothing more.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,17:34   

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

It makes much more sense than any YEC position I can think of, and is a position/view I wish more Christians would adopt.

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.


ugh - stepped on my foot again.  No offense was meant.  I don't follow every thread here or at PT, but the few posts I've seen at PT compared to the two or three I saw here prior to this thread were very abrupt and appeared almost to be two different people.  That's actually why I used that Eminem line earlier in this thread. . . .


Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06: 03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.

I must have my eyes on backwards.  No matter how many times I reread what I wrote, I cannot get from "maybe God created many familes, but only one is focussed on in Genesis" to "evolution with no divinity involved."  I can think of a number o explanations, but I'll reserve judgement until you can explain how I'm misreading myself.

(Edited to add response to Carol in lieu of double-posting)

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,19:18   

Unmark,

Of course a better question would be, in what sense are we currently in an era of "rest" when we know that evolution is an ongoing process, just as it was during some of the other six eras.

It seems to me that God, via the Bible if it is divinely inspired, is telling us that henceforth evolution will not lead to anything as drastically new and overpowering (on earth) as the appearance of humankind some 20,000 years ago. If I am correct about this, we have here a specific prediction we can hold the Bible to. Only problem is you and I will not be around long enough to see it disproven. (It can never be firmly proven since one can always claim that in the future it may yet be disproven.)

Too bad.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,20:55   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)

Dave, just think for a moment.  In the very same comment you first call Evolution "inane" and then you ask me if I think you're a different (kind of) YECer...

I think you already know my answer.   :)

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,21:18   

Quote (stephenWells @ May 01 2006,13:00)
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)
Quote

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first?  Animals or Man.  No time now ... stay tuned!

How much time could you possibly need to answer such a simple question? I'll help you out and give you three options:

A) Genesis 1 is correct (animals before man ) and Genesis 2 is wrong.

B) Genesis 2 is correst (man before animals) and Genesis 1 is wrong.

C) The man and woman created in Genesis 1 are not the same as the man and woman created in Genesis 2 (traditional attempt at reconciliation, leading to e.g. Lilith legend), further details to follow.

Now all you have to do is type A, B or C and then explain in more detail later. Easy, eh?

Back to reality, I was reading on the infidels.org forum about the OT document theory which is (excluding apologists) the current most accepted theory about the OT origins. The theory is that there were a number of authors and a couple of editors for the OT. Genesis was written by two authors and blended by an editor and when you read genesis split like this it makes more sense as a narrative. So genesis 1 and genesis 2 have different authors. I suppose rather than throw out one of the myths they kept both (A little why the contradictions in the Gospels were kept and even a modern biography might have different versions of the same events).

Though Cain's wife has me flumoxed. Even 3000 years ago people were not stupid. You think they would have put in some explanation around it.
Michael

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,21:23   

Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
... that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent ...

Define "Intelligent Agent," Dave.

That phrase is used by two people in two different ways. It's used by Dembski to mean "God." And it's used by Marvin Minsky to mean a simple computational capability that can work in a massive parallel systems.

In Minsky's view, human intelligence is built up from the interactions of simple agents, (or intelligent agents) who are themselves mindless. He describes those interactions as constituting a "Society of Mind", hence the title of his book:

The Society of Mind
http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155
http://www.emcp.com/intro_pc/reading12.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

Evolution itself, as Danny Hillis demonstrated, is potentially such an Intelligent Agent even though it is mindless. Thus your claim that you must accept Evolution with no Intelligent Agent is false from a Minsky perspective and only true from a Dumbski perspective.

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,02:40   

Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author. Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this. The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.

The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.

So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.

The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!

It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,02:50   

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 03 2006,07:40)
Quote
Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author.
What a pitiy that no ones agree with you.  While it must be enjoyable (and certainly fits in with your martyr complex) to be the 'lone voice of reason', your inability to actually support your position with anything but bad logic and bad Hebrew is embarrassing to intelligent Jews everywhere.

Quote
Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this.
Anyone with a good grip of Biblical Hebrew can see that you are forcing interpretations that do not fit.
Quote
The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.
Liar.  You really should try to get your facts right, Carol.

Quote
The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.
Nor did the author care about your opinion.

Failure to support your case with anything but your personal opinion (or Landa's, since you don't appear to have opinions of your own) does not make an argument.

Quote
So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.
Factually incorrect.  Perhaps you ought to try reading the book, rather than pontificating about it.

Quote
The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!
What a good thing then that scholars don't make the argument for that reason!  What a good thing that you offer your personal and second-hand opinion as somehow superior to the work of more than two thousand years of scholars.

Quote
It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.
Perhaps, then, you ought to demonstrate some of this objectivity.

See above.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,16:40   

Hello Carol,

My post was meant for the evdence based people on this forum who might be interested in the current mainstream position. I am not able to come to these forums enough to hold any kind of debate. Sure this position might be overturned but that's science *shrug*. Your comment about scholars sounds more like sour grapes than anything else because rather than holding a party line they seem to spend most of their time squabling.

Carol, I have seen you talk about what you believe but not the details (I think we are supposed to buy some book or other). Has it been debated anywhere on the internet? If not why not put forward you position in the Bible Criticism and History area of the Internet Infidels forum. I know that it is an atheism site but a lot of Christians and other Theists go and debate there (quite a few are knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek) as the site is generally free of fundie trolls.

There was a debate their recently about explaining Genesis based on a "Gap" theory. This was also based on reinterpreting the original Hebrew which sounds similar to what you are trying to do. Although, his translations are a trifle forced.

Michael

p.s. It would also be good to see a defence against the archaelogicial evidence of the Bible namely:

. No evidence of Jews being in Egypt
. No evidence of a large group of people wandering around the desert for forty years.
. Town of Ai that was supposed to be conquered had ceased to exist long before the supposed battle.
. Jericho didn't have walls around the time the walls were supposed to have been blown down.
. Prophesy that Tyre was to be razed to the ground never happened.

The current people defending these aren't doing a particularly good job.

I find it ironic that all this effort is being spent by DI and the creationists on evolution when archaeology and Bible scholarship are quietly doing more damage to their beliefs than evolution ever could.

Michael

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,23:03   

Tacitus said ...
Quote
Claiming that harmful genetic mutations have increased to the point of reducing our lifespan to 10% of what it used to be 6,000 years ago is about as sensible as claiming the speed of light is a fraction of what it used to be


Hey Tacitus ... I know a good eye doctor I could recommend that could prescribe some eye glasses or contacts so you could accurately read what I write ... but if it was not an eyesight problem and you are going to deliberately misrepresent what I write, then kindly get off my thread so I don't have to waste my time correcting your mistakes ...

I said that by the time of Moses, genetic mutations would have accumulated enough to make close marriages unsafe, hence the anti-incest laws.  Get it?

The long lifespans prior to the Flood are a different matter.  I will give more details on this later on my other thread.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,23:16   

I think HEHE was asking back there somewhere if God is a moral relativist, since brother/sister marriages were OK in the beginning, but not by the time of Moses ...

Good question ...

No, I don't believe He is.  But I think there is a common misconception about WHY God makes certain rules.  Some people think that God just arbitrarily made up a bunch of rules.  From my reading of the Bible, it is clear to me that God made rules FOR THE BENEFIT of people.  This is a perfect example.  In this case, God's rule was: Brothers, don't marry sisters.  Why?  Because of accumulated harmful mutations.  So God is not saying there is anything INHERENTLY wrong with brother/sister marriages ... he is only saying there is NOW something PRACTICALLY wrong with it.  Saying that God is a moral relativist because of this would be like saying that catalytic converter laws for motor vehicles are somehow "morally relativistic."  A long time ago, there were no such laws.  Now they are necessary due to the proliferation of automobiles.

HEHE's funny special case about a man with a vascectomy marrying his sister (I take my hat off to you, hehe, this is a good one!  I like the way your mind works!) would simply be a judgment call I suppose for lawmakers and/or individuals, the risks being failed vasectomies, etc.

Does this help?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,23:19   

I think HEHE was asking back there somewhere if God is a moral relativist, since brother/sister marriages were OK in the beginning, but not by the time of Moses ...

Good question ...

No, I don't believe He is.  But I think there is a common misconception about WHY God makes certain rules.  Some people think that God just arbitrarily made up a bunch of rules.  From my reading of the Bible, it is clear to me that God made rules FOR THE BENEFIT of people.  This is a perfect example.  In this case, God's rule was: Brothers, don't marry sisters.  Why?  Because of accumulated harmful mutations.  So God is not saying there is anything INHERENTLY wrong with brother/sister marriages ... he is only saying there is NOW something PRACTICALLY wrong with it.  Saying that God is a moral relativist because of this would be like saying that catalytic converter laws for motor vehicles are somehow "morally relativistic."  A long time ago, there were no such laws.  Now they are necessary due to the proliferation of automobiles.

HEHE's funny special case about a man with a vascectomy marrying his sister (I take my hat off to you, hehe, this is a good one!  I like the way your mind works!) would simply be a judgment call I suppose for lawmakers and/or individuals, the risks being failed vasectomies, etc.

Does this help?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,23:40   

Norm--

Sorry to take so long to get back to you on the Danny Hillis Genetic Algorithm question.  GA's do not simulate the real conditions we find in the natural world and thus do not 'prove' evolution.  As Don Batten writes,
Quote
However, GAs do not mimic or simulate biological evolution because with a GA:

A ‘trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.

A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two. A GA does not test for survival; it tests for only a single trait. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.

Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected. This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation—see Weasel Words and Dawkins’ weasel revisited.

Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population. Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored (see ReMine’s The Biotic Message for a thorough run-down of this, which is completely ignored in GAs—see Population genetics, Haldane’s Dilemma, etc.).

The flip side to this is that high rates of ‘reproduction’ are used. Bacteria can only double their numbers per generation. Many ‘higher’ organisms can only do a little better, but GAs commonly produce 100s or 1000s of ‘offspring’ per generation. For example, if a population of 1,000 bacteria had only one survivor (999 died), then it would take 10 generations to get back to 1,000.

Generation time is ignored. A generation can happen in a computer in microseconds whereas even the best bacteria take about 20 minutes. Multicellular organisms have far longer generation times.

The mutation rate is artificially high (by many orders of magnitude). This is sustainable because the ‘genome’ is small (see next point) and artificial rules are invoked to protect the best ‘organism’ from mutations, for example. Such mutation rates in real organisms would result in all the offspring being non-viable (error catastrophe). This is why living things have exquisitely designed editing machinery to minimize copying errors to the rate of one in about 10 billion (for humans).

The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing. The smallest real world genome is over 0.5 million base pairs (and it is an obligate parasite, which depends on its host for many of the substrates needed) with several hundred proteins coded. This is equivalent to over a million bits of information. Even if a GA generated 1800 bits of real information, as one of the commonly-touted ones claims, that is equivalent to maybe one small enzyme—and that was achieved with totally artificial mutation rates, generation times, selection coefficients, etc., etc. In fact, this is also how the body’s immune system develops specific antibodies, with these designed conditions totally different to any whole organism. This is pointed out in more detail by biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner in his refutation of a skeptic.

In real organisms, mutations occur throughout the genome, not just in a gene or section that specifies a given trait. This means that all the deleterious changes to other traits have to be eliminated along with selecting for the rare desirable changes in the trait being selected for. This is ignored in GAs. With genetic algorithms, the program itself is protected from mutations; only target sequences are mutated. Indeed, if it were not quarantined from mutations, the program would very quickly crash. However, the reproduction machinery of an organism is not protected from mutations.

There is no problem of irreducible complexity with GAs (see Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). Many biological traits require many different components to be present, functioning together, for the trait to exist at all (e.g. protein synthesis, DNA replication, reproduction of a cell, blood clotting, every metabolic pathway, etc.).

Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population. The problem of recessive genes leads to one facet of Haldane’s Dilemma, where the well-known evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out that, based on the theorems of population genetics, there has not been enough time for the sexual organisms with low reproductive rates and long generation times to evolve. See review of ReMine’s analysis of Haldane’s Dilemma.

Multiple coding genes are ignored. From the human genome project, it appears that, on average, each gene codes for at least three different proteins (see Genome Mania — Deciphering the human genome. In microbes, genes have been discovered that code for one protein when ‘read’ in one direction and a different protein when read backwards, or when the ‘reading’ starts one letter on. Creating a GA to generate such information-dense coding would seem to be out of the question. Such demands an intelligence vastly superior to human beings for its creation.

The outcome in a GA is ‘pre-ordained’. Evolution is by definition purposeless, so no computer program that has a pre-determined goal can simulate it—period. This is blatantly true of Dawkins’ ‘weasel’ program, where the selection of each letter sequence is determined entirely on its match with the pre-programmed goal sequence. Perhaps if the programmer could come up with a program that allowed anything to happen and then measured the survivability of the ‘organisms’, it might be getting closer to what evolution is supposed to do! Of course that is impossible (as is evolution).

With a particular GA, we need to ask how much of the ‘information’ generated by the program is actually specified in the program, rather than being generated de novo. A number of modules or subroutines are normally specified in the program, and the ways these can interact is also specified. The GA program finds the best combinations of modules and the best ways of interacting them. The amount of new information generated is usually quite trivial, even with all the artificial constraints designed to make the GA work.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,00:01   

Quote
A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two.
Yes it will, it then becomes a multiobjective genetic algorithm.

Quote
In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration.
This guy really needs to look at some more GA's then.

Quote
This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation—see Weasel Words and Dawkins’ weasel revisited.
Not a genetic algorithm.

Quote
Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation.
A. Certainly not always and B. We don't always wan't to perfectly simlulate evolution we just want a good answer.

Quote
The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing.
Unless you use a multiobjective algorithm.

I think the point seems to be that genetic algorithms aren't perfect simulations of biological evolution. I don't think they were ever supposed to be. The idea was to use specific ideas from evolution to solve problems. You can say that is doesn't generate much information, and thats fine the point is it solves the problem that we can't in novel ways. Most creationists say that evolution can't generate 'information' either, thats fine too. It still works whether we say it can generate information or not.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,00:02   

Afdave, did you even UNDERSTAND what you just quoted? Parrot!

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:07   

Quote
I think the point seems to be that genetic algorithms aren't perfect simulations of biological evolution. I don't think they were ever supposed to be. The idea was to use specific ideas from evolution to solve problems. You can say that is doesn't generate much information, and thats fine the point is it solves the problem that we can't in novel ways.

Thank you for clearing that up.  I think a better thing to say would be that 'Genetic Algorithms use specific ideas from the nature of Selection and Adaptation.'  Using the term 'evolution' confuses people, including apparently Neo-Darwinists.

This example was offered up to me as supposed 'evidence' that biological evolution (i.e. molecules-to-man) has in fact occurred.  

So I take it that whoever it was that offered that to me was in error, right?

And yes, Renier, I did understand most of it.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:19   

To be fair to Norm Doering, I found his quote ...
Quote
The computer used selection, akin to natural selection, tested the programs and terminated the less fit so that only the shortest (the best) sorting programs would be given a chance to reproduce. Over ten thousand generations of this cycle, Hillis' system bred a software program that was nearly as short as the best sorting programs written by human programmers.

That is a form of proof -- call it proof of concept. It's not proof that Darwinian evolution is what wrote our genomes, but it is proof that evolution could, in principle, do so. That's what I  mean  when I  talk about science and deductive proof.


--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:27   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 04 2006,05:01)
I think the point seems to be that genetic algorithms aren't perfect simulations of biological evolution. I don't think they were ever supposed to be.

Biological evolution works with millions of years and millions of individual organisms. In the case of bacteria and insects, trillions upon trillions of individuals.

No computer simulation can match those kind of resources.

However, some genetic algorithms are meant to model and ask questions of biological evolution. For example, Avida:

http://www.krl.caltech.edu/avida/home/research.html
http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/projects/
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,03:40   

Hi Dave,

The "vasectomy" part of the example was mine, I think. And no, it was not meant as a joke.
Think of this: You say that your all-knowing, benign entity made laws for the benefit of its children, and later changed them when new circumstances (circumstances he must have known would come to pass from the begining of time, if I may add) emerged.
Well guess what: Circumstances have changed again. It is entirely possible for a person to marry knowing that they will never have children, with much more certainty than even Sarah did. You don't like the vasectomy example? Fine, replace it with a woman who had an hysterectomy. Or whatever. And do not try to evade this by changing the subject to what human lawmakers would do: The question is clear. Since an ancient divine rule was necessarily changed for no other reason than to avoid newly emerging concequenses, wouldn't elimination of the possibilty of those consequenses mean it would apply again? If God allowed incest when offspring were not a problem, then would a person completely incapable of having offspring, who commits incest, sin in the eyes of the lord?
It's a simple question, that derives from your theory. Don't try to pass it off as a joke. It only hurts your argument.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:05   

Quote
Since an ancient divine rule was necessarily changed for no other reason than to avoid newly emerging concequenses, wouldn't elimination of the possibilty of those consequenses mean it would apply again? If God allowed incest when offspring were not a problem, then would a person completely incapable of having offspring, who commits incest, sin in the eyes of the lord?
That is very good logic and I do follow it.  From my understanding of Scripture, the word "sin" simply means "opposition to the will of God."  The primary guideline which we have to determine the will of God is the Bible as far as I know.  We have the one written guideline against incest at the time of Moses, but there are other guidelines for marriage in Scripture which may or may not apply, i.e. one question I can think of is "What is the Biblical PURPOSE of marriage?"  Remember that IF God approves of brother/sister no-offspring marriages NOW, this would mean  He would be approving of a marriage which WILL NEVER have any kids.  Notice that this situation, too, would be different than my supposed Cain's Wife scenario.  My tentative answer without further study would be that this unique situation still would not meet God's approval because one of his designs for marriage is to have children, but it does not appear  to me to be some kind of "heinous sin," but I could be wrong ... maybe He's fine with it.  

I'm curious what you are driving at ... are you considering doing this?  Are you concerned that you would somehow "fall out of Grace" under the Catholic conception of this term if you did?  Do you know someone who is?  Like hehe? :-) Or are just trying to investigate if you think God is consistent?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,05:24   

Hey Dave, how come humans don't have "perfect genes" any more?  It almost sounds as if the genome is malleable and changes over time, sort of the thing that evolution would predict.  However, I fail to see where a perfect creator making perfect beings would invent a changing DNA of just the kind that is required for evolutionary changes.

So, let's see how creationism/ID entails the kind of genetic material that is predicted by evolutionary scenarios, and which requires the incest taboo/prohibition.  Or any evidence for your claims whatsoever, including evidence that Adam and Eve existed and were "perfect".  Come on, you're such a skeptic, I'm sure you've got all of this evidence at hand, much more than the millions of pages of research that we have on our side.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,06:11   

Glen, clearly God made DNA so that brothers and sisters could not marry.

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,11:57   

Afdave,

You speculations regarding God's motives in prohibiting incest are nothing more than that, just speculation. The Bible offers no reason for the prohibition, so the ban is in effect whether or not your (or my) speculations are applicable. To assume otherwise, Afdave, is to open the door to anyone who wishes to find some excuse for not abiding by this or that commandment - all one needs to do is find some rationalization for God's commandment that would not be applicable under certain desired circumstances and, presto, the prohibition has evaporated.

Are you willing to shoulder this responsibility?

Since God expects His creatures to abide by his commandments, it makes no sense to propose that God's world would of necessity be based on violations of those commandments, such as Cain marrying his sister. So your theory has no merit. The correct explanation is as I described above.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,03:38   

Well, we could go on to argue whether God thinks it's a sin to marry unless you can have children... But I must say this takes our train of thought too far from this thread's subject. My point, as you may have guessed, is another:
Quote
I'm curious what you are driving at ... are you considering doing this?  Are you concerned that you would somehow "fall out of Grace" under the Catholic conception of this term if you did?  Do you know someone who is?  Like hehe? :-) Or are just trying to investigate if you think God is consistent?

 :)  Respectively: No, no, no, and yes.

Well ,not if god is consistent himself, but if all those people who insist that their view represents the one, absolute, literal and indisputable Truth™ are consistent with reality. See how many assumptions we have made so far, each to explain the other? Now, all these work (sort of) if you're already firm on your beliefs, and try to find possible ways to justify them- they do not work, however, when you are looking for the truth; and that is what science is supposed to do.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
  78 replies since April 29 2006,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]