Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 5:37 PM
160 online now:
ooh-child, Tangle, Theodoric (3 members, 157 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Origin of Translation
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 51 (167066)
12-10-2004 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Loudmouth
11-19-2004 1:53 PM


quote:
There are people on death row today that were put there without an eyewitness to the crime. Can you guess what type of evidence convicted them? Scientific evidence devoid of faith. Are they there because of faith? Absolutely not. They are there because the scientific method is a trustworthy method of determing what happened in the past even if there was no one there to witness it. On one hand science is trustworthy enough to put people to death, and in the next moment (according to creationists) it is totally untrustworthy. If science is totally based on faith and not trustworthy, then there are a lot of prisoners that should be set free.

An excellent argument, however, in my opinion flawed. In such cases there is concrete evidences that point toward the murderer. Such as DNA or semen matching. The evidence is hardcut, clear. And if you talk to any lawyer or judge, trying to prove guilt purely on forensic data and such is extremely extremely hard. Now as far as the case for evolution goes there isn't clear cut, exact, evidence that proves evolution to be true. This is shown obviously by this website in the fact that there is debate over the issue. It isn't as clear cut. There is a huge difference in this analogy

I also just came across this excellent interview between Dr. Gary Habermass, philosophy professor at Liberty University, and professor Antony Flew, a long time leading philosophical atheist that has turned to theism. There are some excellent points but I will simply point out one reply. When explaining how he came to theism he stated that it was not ontological or moral arguments that brought him to the belief in a God, in fact he states that he was quite unimpressed by these arguments, but rather only the scientific forms of teleology.

quote:
FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for Godís existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. Iíve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I donít think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.

quote:
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

I personally love this last quote because it pertains to the topic of this thread. DNA, in the case of the topic of this thread translation, in my estimation points much more towards design than evolution. While there has been theories and guesses there has been no clear cut answer to the origin of DNA and furthermore there hasn't even been an appropriate answer to the origin of translation.

In any case the interview is excellent, and has some excellent incites. Flew is obviously not a Christian and has not subscribed himself to any sort of religion. At the time he does not believe in revelation but is open to it. Here's the link Interview with atheist turned theist Antony Flew


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Loudmouth, posted 11-19-2004 1:53 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Nighttrain, posted 12-10-2004 10:26 PM jjburklo has responded
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 12-11-2004 2:01 PM jjburklo has responded
 Message 50 by Loudmouth, posted 12-13-2004 5:06 PM jjburklo has not yet responded
 Message 51 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2004 5:11 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2039 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 32 of 51 (167080)
12-10-2004 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jjburklo
12-10-2004 8:56 PM


Getting back to your a posteriori reasoning about autos. If you had a car that kept breaking down all the time, what would be your opinion of the Designer? Humans have to nurse a poorly-designed system through life, a system that not only becomes disabled through poor design,relies on a fixed minimum of resources to avoid death in minutes,hours,days, but, also has to be kept in good condition to resist attacks by bacteria designed by the Creator-of-all-things to destroy the human system. With limited self-repair, wouldn`t you think an Intelligent Designer would do a better job of his Supreme Creation? Only a person locked into a religious view would accept the idea of a benevolent Creator with the constant evidence of faulty design around us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jjburklo, posted 12-10-2004 8:56 PM jjburklo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jjburklo, posted 12-11-2004 12:08 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 34 by jjburklo, posted 12-11-2004 12:08 AM Nighttrain has responded

    
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 51 (167093)
12-11-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Nighttrain
12-10-2004 10:26 PM


quote:
Getting back to your a posteriori reasoning about autos. If you had a car that kept breaking down all the time, what would be your opinion of the Designer? Humans have to nurse a poorly-designed system through life, a system that not only becomes disabled through poor design,relies on a fixed minimum of resources to avoid death in minutes,hours,days, but, also has to be kept in good condition to resist attacks by bacteria designed by the Creator-of-all-things to destroy the human system. With limited self-repair, wouldn`t you think an Intelligent Designer would do a better job of his Supreme Creation? Only a person locked into a religious view would accept the idea of a benevolent Creator with the constant evidence of faulty design around us.

No not at all. When Adam sinned the entire human race was cursed. And as time goes on the degression of mankind will continue due to continual sin. Not until God establishes his kingdom on earth will we be perfect. It's no surprise to me at all. I thank God everyday that we are finite. That we are able to die. The moment Adam sinned God as a perfect being was forced to seperate himself from us. It is because of the curse that eventually, through the death and resurrection of Christ that I can have a personal communion with my creator and everlasting life. Without the curse mankind would be left here on earth forever seperated from God, something I would not wish upon anyone. But it is because of the curse that we are able to be redeemed.

Regardless of our imperfections, there is still a complexity about humans, specifically in their DNA, that cannot be accounted for by evolution. To have everything work in the precise manner that it does, even from a cosmological standpoint, the earth is to perfectly set up to have happened by random chance. To expect random mutation to have created the complexity of life and the universe we see today is mind boggling to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Nighttrain, posted 12-10-2004 10:26 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 51 (167094)
12-11-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Nighttrain
12-10-2004 10:26 PM


sorry posted it twice by accident

This message has been edited by jjburklo, 12-11-2004 12:15 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Nighttrain, posted 12-10-2004 10:26 PM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Nighttrain, posted 12-11-2004 2:12 AM jjburklo has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2039 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 35 of 51 (167121)
12-11-2004 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by jjburklo
12-11-2004 12:08 AM


And the car analogy?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jjburklo, posted 12-11-2004 12:08 AM jjburklo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jjburklo, posted 12-11-2004 12:25 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 51 (167167)
12-11-2004 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Nighttrain
12-11-2004 2:12 AM


quote:
And the car analogy?

I've already said that I admit my original analogies have holes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Nighttrain, posted 12-11-2004 2:12 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8829
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 37 of 51 (167192)
12-11-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jjburklo
12-10-2004 8:56 PM


No answer to DNA
personally love this last quote because it pertains to the topic of this thread. DNA, in the case of the topic of this thread translation, in my estimation points much more towards design than evolution. While there has been theories and guesses there has been no clear cut answer to the origin of DNA and furthermore there hasn't even been an appropriate answer to the origin of translation.

You are, of course, right that there is no definitive answer to the origin of DNA. There is a gap in our knowledge here. That is the sum total of the argument for design at this point: there is a gap therefore god did it. This seems to me to be weak theology.

I'd at least respect this if those propounding it were willing to state that they would give up their faith when the gap is closed. However, somehow, I doubt that many will do that. Flew sounds like he might be one of the exceptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jjburklo, posted 12-10-2004 8:56 PM jjburklo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jjburklo, posted 12-12-2004 2:51 PM NosyNed has responded

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 51 (167409)
12-12-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NosyNed
12-11-2004 2:01 PM


Re: No answer to DNA
quote:
You are, of course, right that there is no definitive answer to the origin of DNA. There is a gap in our knowledge here. That is the sum total of the argument for design at this point: there is a gap therefore god did it. This seems to me to be weak theology.

I'd understand your frustration to this point if it was how I conveyed it. This was my statement

quote:
DNA, in the case of the topic of this thread translation, in my estimation points much more towards design than evolution.

My argument was not that since evolution doesn't have an answer then it must be God, it was that the characteristics of DNA point more towards design. The intricacies of DNA and its replication, translation, etc are so complex and wonderful that it seems to be designed rather then to have happened by random chance. Evolution has yet to come up with a suitable explanation, and so since I detect design, I infer design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 12-11-2004 2:01 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2004 3:33 PM jjburklo has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8829
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 39 of 51 (167417)
12-12-2004 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jjburklo
12-12-2004 2:51 PM


Detecting Design
Evolution has yet to come up with a suitable explanation, and so since I detect design, I infer design.

So, in your case, the designer isn't "god"? OK. That leaves some big mystery as to what it was.

We have, once live has arisen, a process which can produce apparent "design" without intelligence. Since we don't know any details of how life arose we can't say that that process was involved. There is some likelyhood that there could have been another unintelligent "design" producing process involved or that something akin to the evolutionary process was involved pre-biotically. I'd say that likelyhood is at least as great as your intelligent designer idea.

Obviously you'disagree but I'd say it was very much more likely than your idea. We have one concrete example of a non-intelligent process that can produce apparent "design". You have no example of an intelligent designer that is able to act on the formation of life on this planet.

That does still leave the unanswered question of how you detect design without already knowing that a designer was involved. That has yet, to my knowledge, to be answered.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-12-2004 03:34 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jjburklo, posted 12-12-2004 2:51 PM jjburklo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jjburklo, posted 12-12-2004 3:48 PM NosyNed has responded

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 51 (167423)
12-12-2004 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
12-12-2004 3:33 PM


Re: Detecting Design
quote:
So, in your case, the designer isn't "god"? OK. That leaves some big mystery as to what it was.

What?! When did I ever state or even infer that the designer wasn't God. If I detect design, therefore infer design, then obviously I believe in a designer, which I obviously I believe to be God.

quote:
You have no example of an intelligent designer that is able to act on the formation of life on this planet.

Well actually I do. The infallible word of God. God said it, and it happened. Obviously, you don't hold to this opinion just as I don't hold to yours.

quote:
We have, once live has arisen, a process which can produce apparent "design" without intelligence. Since we don't know any details of how life arose we can't say that that process was involved.

Key point in this statement is "once life has arisen." Evolution has to be able to account for origins, and as of right now evolution is clueless in that regard. In fact the only thing that "evolution" has definitively shown is that varieties are formed. I'm fine with that. The Bible's fine with that. Nowhere does it state that species are fixed. But the formation of a variety is a far cry from common descent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2004 3:33 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2004 4:00 PM jjburklo has not yet responded
 Message 42 by jar, posted 12-12-2004 4:19 PM jjburklo has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8829
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 41 of 51 (167428)
12-12-2004 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jjburklo
12-12-2004 3:48 PM


Re: Detecting Design
The intricacies of DNA and its replication, translation, etc are so complex and wonderful that it seems to be designed rather then to have happened by random chance.

Sorry, I didn't pay close enough attention to this point.

You detection of design is based on something "complex and wonderful". However, as I noted we have a process which can produce very complex results (and wonderful I guess but that is even fuzzier in definition than complex is). Since we have this process as an example it leaves your detection mechanism broken. How do you determine "design" that is not formed by such a mechanism from that which is?

You then use the "word of God" as your "evidence" for a designer. Since the majority of believers disagree with your interpretation of this word it hardly seems that it is very powerful evidence.

In addition, that same "word" has been shown to have been in error when interpreted over the centuries. In fact, there is a a fair number of believers who have interpretations of that same word which are clearly wrong. How does one determine if your interpretation is right?

All you really have is writings by humans which have been translated and interpreted in a number of different ways over the centuries. Some (perhaps even many) of the results of this have been shown to be wrong. Now you want to apply it to the formation of life on earth in it's original form 4.5 Gyrs ago? Hardly seems like much of a foundation upon which to stand when you look at it in the historical perspective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jjburklo, posted 12-12-2004 3:48 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 51 (167431)
12-12-2004 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jjburklo
12-12-2004 3:48 PM


Re: Detecting Design
As a Christian I have real problem with this line of reasoning. It simply makes GOD out to be a totally incompetent bungler. If, as I believe, there is a GOD, one who intuitively understands the relationship between gravity and the other forces, who could come up with something as marvelous as the universe we live in or as successful a tactic as mutation and Natural Selection, to imply that he designed some of the critters is a joke.

Look at a human. What possible sort of GOD would design such a Rube Goldberg solution, one where eyes are designed backwards, with left over pieces parts, where there's male pattern baldness and insufficient padding on elbows, knees and shins. The only possible answer is an incompetent GOD with no knowledge of biology or engineering. Further more, such a GOD suffers from both short and long term memory loss and is incapable of remembering the mistakes he's made and continues to incorporate those mistakes in each new version.

Even MicroSoft comes out with bug fixes. Is the Designer even less competent than M$?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jjburklo, posted 12-12-2004 3:48 PM jjburklo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jjburklo, posted 12-12-2004 4:37 PM jar has responded

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 51 (167435)
12-12-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
12-12-2004 4:19 PM


Re: Detecting Design
Jar

I understand your point, and I've already alluded to this point before. Yes, we are imperfect on this earth. But why is that? Because we screwed up! When Adam sinned all of creation is cursed. And as time goes by and sin compounds this curse will have a greater and greater effect. And secondly, lets look at the big picture here. The time we spend on this earth is so minute to the time we'll spend in eternity. In heaven, we'll be made completely perfect! This time on earth is to prepare us for heaven. Part of that preperation is dealing with our imperfections.

I'm thankful for the curse. I'm thankful that I'm not perfect. When Adam sinned, he and all of mankind was seperated from God. It is because of this curse that eventually Christ could atone for our sin. It is because of the curse that Christ is able to die for my sins and be resurrected. It is because of the curse that we can have communion with God again.

I'm assuming you believe in evolution. And as a Christian I'm assuming you believe in the Bible. Don't you think that if evolution was how God created us, he might allude to it. Specifically in Genesis. If he's going to give us an account for creation, why tell half the story, well actually more like 1% of the story if this is the case. No, God told us all we needed to know. He spoke and it happened. As a Christian you must believe in God's omnipotence. If he's all powerful, then he certainly has the capability of speaking and it happening. So why go through the arduous process of "evolution"? He has no need for it. If we are His purpose for this earth, why would he wait the millions of years needed for evolution to take place to eventually form humans? There's no need for it.

This message has been edited by jjburklo, 12-12-2004 04:45 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 12-12-2004 4:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 12-12-2004 6:06 PM jjburklo has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 51 (167459)
12-12-2004 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jjburklo
12-12-2004 4:37 PM


Re: Detecting Design
I understand your point, and I've already alluded to this point before. Yes, we are imperfect on this earth. But why is that? Because we screwed up! When Adam sinned all of creation is cursed. And as time goes by and sin compounds this curse will have a greater and greater effect.

See there it gets even sillier. Are you saying that Adam's eyeballs weren't designed backwards?

Come on, now we have a designer that purposely builds in defects. Not only is he incompetent he may well be criminally liable.

I'm thankful for the curse. ...{snip}... have communion with God again.

Sorry, as a Christian I see no meaning or sense in any of that. That is all simply gibberish.

I'm assuming you believe in evolution.

No, all the evidence shows that Evolution happened. There is no belief involved. It happened.

And as a Christian I'm assuming you believe in the Bible.

Probably more than many Christians, certainly enough to know that the Genesis creation myths, the Flood myth, the story of Adam and (St}Eve, the Exodus stories and many other parts of the Bible were never meant to be taken literally.

So why go through the arduous process of "evolution"? He has no need for it. If we are His purpose for this earth, why would he wait the millions of years needed for evolution to take place to eventually form humans? There's no need for it.

Agreed. So since it did take billions of years and billions on billions of attempts, then Man is certainly not his purpose but just another critter. The only other possible explanation is that GOD is so incompetent that it took him Billions of years and Billions on Billions of attempts to finally creat ha pretty poor design.

No, if ID is true then GOD is simply a joke.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jjburklo, posted 12-12-2004 4:37 PM jjburklo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jjburklo, posted 12-13-2004 2:03 PM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 45 of 51 (167503)
12-12-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jjburklo
11-18-2004 11:33 PM


take me for a ride in your car car
there is a way that the car analogy shows the failure of ID as a science question.

I don't need to know who designed the car, or even who put it together and shipped it and sold it

in order to investigate how it works.

and if I did know who all those people were, it wouldn't help me one whit in the investigation of how it works.

the relative knowledge of the "who did it" question has absolutly no bearing on the question of determining the "how it works" question.

now if you want to have a philosophical debate on whether your car is better designed than mine, the question of "who" is valid (it may or may not be the same designer).

to me the question of ID comes after the science ... once you have determined how the universe works in all it's wonderous and varied means and manners then you can gaze into the abyss and see what is gazing back (to paraphrase Neitzche)

ID, properly pursued, is to science as math is to physics: you need it, but you don't teach physics in math class.

see http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=10&t=97&p=2 for more.

enjoy.

enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jjburklo, posted 11-18-2004 11:33 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019