Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

I was just following a train of thought, trying to see what all evolution had to include. Consciousness is a great mystery. No one knows what it is or how it might have evolved. We can see brains getting bigger among the hominids.The problem with consciousness is that it's a private experience, and private experiences are not conducive to the scientific method.I don't know much about "theistic evolutionists," how they might reconcile the apparent cruelty of nature with the goodness of God, since theistic evolutionists couldn't, I would think, believe in a Fall. The point was to show the ridiculousness of claiming that all the human brain is is a special kind of computer-like algorhythm. Moving the eggs around according to a set of instructions is what computers do electronically. So the instructions would include rules like, if egg-carton slot #4 is empty, then egg-carton slot #323 had to be full, and so on. That's what an algorhythm for a computer says too, only in a very elaborate way. Not that I know anything about computers, but I think I picked up his drift. I do not. Neither does the author I quoted. There's a well-known test, called the Turing test, which says that if you talk (say, through e-mail)to something, not knowing if it's a person or computer, if after awhile you can't tell the difference, and if it's a computer you are talking to, that means that the computer is intelligent in the human sense and so perhaps conscious. Turing back in the 50s predicted that once they had computer with a large enough memory, the computer would pass the test. Turing predicted the computer would have to contain 128 megabytes. That size is nothing these days. They have far larger ones, but no computers yet are speculating on the meaning of life or the "formal purpose" of human beings as far as I know.In other words, I was just running through some ideas on this thread, no real conclusions.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-20-2006 10:10 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-20-2006 10:12 AM

How can you deny it? Didn't you see the movie "The Ten Commandments"? This god was the god of this tribe of Hebrew goat-herders. He lived up in the mountains. Moses went to see him.Faith, I've got to do a chore. Be back in about 45 minutes.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-17-2006 01:34 PM

Context: This is from another thread. What I'm denying is that in the early part of the Bible God is like any tribal god.http://EvC Forum: For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interview -->EvC Forum: For percy: setting the record straight on Charlie Rose interviewIt's not that God isn't the God of a particular people, it's that he isn't one of the small gods that were the idols of the people all around. Superficially, He puts himself in a similar position, though, which I think is touchingly condescending (in the old sense of the word), in keeping with the humility of Jesus Christ, as He IS the great Creator God and not one of the little demon gods. He has His own people, He makes Himself their King by covenant with them, as kings did with their people, gives them their laws just as Hammurabi did, and so on. Yet He is the God who made all things, and His ultimate plan goes far beyond the governing of these people He has chosen for His own.I hope you don't mind that, after getting this set up, I have to take a break. I have to be gone for an hour or two before getting back to this. There is more to say. I can look up quotes that show that He is the universal God and not just a tribal god for instance.

That's not the way I heard it. I heard that these old parts of the Bible were written back before monotheism developed. These different tribes had different gods, and these gods were in competition with each other. Yahweh was in competition with gods like Baal. Then later, somebody came up with the idea of monotheism and they added the parts of the Bible, such as Genesis, that make Yahweh into the Creator.1Kings 18:21: When he says, "if Yahweh be God," he's asking which is the most powerful.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-17-2006 02:40 PM

Which "old parts" are you talking about?Adam and Eve knew one God, Noah knew one God, but then tribal gods start taking over -- as a result of the Fall. Satan seduced the human race and all his legions of fallen angels got to be little gods. Abraham's family worshiped little gods. But it was no competing little god who called Abraham to leave Ur, but one that had real power, that could promise him the possession of a foreign land and the multiplication of his descendants "as the stars of the sky," in other words one that owned ALL the land. Show me any tribal god who has ever done or even claimed to do such a thing.Not to mention that He showed that He rules nature completely in his contest with the Egyptian magicians, and not to mention the miracles He did for the Israelites on their journey to the Promised Land. The contests recorded in the Bible are for the purpose of demonstrating that God IS God. Other gods don't compete with each other, they are all soldiers in the army of Satan, and he runs a tight army. They compete only with the one true God."Somebody" just "came up with the idea of monotheism," huh? I wonder who that genius was. And how he had the power to get the scriptures rewritten to suit his opinion. And when this was done. And why there isn't any evidence of it anywhere.Oh but I really hope this isn't going to be just another war over revisionist Bible interpretations. Yes, and this is to show which is truly THE God.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2006 05:42 PM

Some parts of the OT are older than others. Genesis is not one of the very old ones, I heard. Psalms is very old. Exodus very old. They added Genesis later. Is that not a telltale sign? They didn't re-write the scriptures probably. There are all these signs that say that this was a tribal God originally. It was a mountain God. He tended to the Hebrews. He doesn't mention the Gentiles at all. Moses went up and talked to him. He has all these detailed instructions about this "ark" thing he was supposed to make. I've been reading about it. Does that sound like the omni-everything God to you?

I was afraid this was where you were going to take this. This is just the revisionist redating of the scriptures to suit modern prejudices. What do you know about their dating methods? The Torah, the first five books of the Bible, which includes Genesis, are Moses' books, written in his generation. NONE of them was added later. They were the foundation and everything else followed. Thought you implied that Genesis was written later, in order to bamboozle everyone into thinking that it was all about monotheism from the beginning. Somebody had to have the authority for that to be done. And the idea in the first place. And had to pretend that it was all of a piece with Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and all written by Moses. Some real lying schemer there. When did he live? This "mountain god" spoke to Abraham all the way over in Ur of the Chaldees, and then to Abraham's family wherever they were, and THEN to Moses from Mount Sinai when He appeared in the burning bush, and then many times on the journey in the wilderness, including again on Mount Sinai when He gave Moses the Law, and then in Canaan. Shouldn't a mountain god stay on his mountain? Well, actually he does unless you are discounting Genesis. Of course if you do that you can deny that God rules all peoples. But Genesis makes it clear. Oh but so does Job. Job was a Gentile about the time of Abraham, who also knew the true God. And even afterward, many Gentiles recognized that this God who was leading the Israelites under Moses HAD to be the true God. I'll have to look them all up though. That was one dramatic encounter all right, but this same God met many many others many other places besides Sinai. No, but obviously whoever wrote what you are reading has a vested interest in demoting the true God by reinventing the texts.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2006 06:12 PM

That is a problem, admittedly. You don't know that for sure. It wasn't a matter of bamboozling. It's just that people began to think that way, and so they made up this story about Eden. There had to be some explanation for the current state of affairs. The idea of evolution had not occurred to them. You call this "touching condescension" on the part of God: I call it Paganism. What I'm reading, Faith, is the Bible.

Nobody knows any such thing FOR SURE, but there's a lot more weight of authority and history on my side than on yours. *"Making up" anything to pass it off as historical truth is bamboozling. To put it politely. Making up an explanation is evil. Call what paganism? And what do you think I called "touching condescension" anyway? Oh, well then it is your OWN reinventions you are imposing on the text.{ABE: By the way, nobody can understand the Bible by simply reading it on his own without help. Even Christians are to pray for God's help every time we look at it, but this need for help is also why the church is equipped with preachers and teachers and seminary professors.}{ABE: * Humanly speaking that is. I DO know it for SURE because I know it through the Spirit. It hangs together in the Spirit, but the modern revisionists fragment it and make a mess of it.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2006 06:51 PM

You said God acted like a Pagan god in a touching way. He was making out like he was just a little god when in fact he was God. Well, I read some about this, but at the moment the Bible is my source. Remember what I said one time, and you agreed. You have to be able to explain something in plain language, or otherwise you don't understand it.

I didn't mean to say He was "making out like he was just a little god," but that He was willing to take the role for the sake of ignorant people, in order to show His true nature as anything BUT a little god. Could you be persuaded to pray to God to help you understand it as you read? The things that are known through the Spirit can be explained in plain language by someone who has that gift, but the difficult thing about Spiritual knowledge is that if the person you are talking to doesn't have the Spirit he can't hear the explanation no matter how good it is, and the modern revisionists don't have the Spirit. The Bible cannot be understood without the Spirit. Not because it isn't understandable, but because the "flesh" -- {abe: or the fallen nature -- fights its truth.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2006 06:59 PM

Our father, who art in heaven . . . that sort of thing?How about if two or three of us gather together in the name of Nothing, Faith? Then Nothing will be with us.We will do this in a bar and raise our glasses to Nothing.Our patron saint, Ernest Hemingway, will be with us.Shakespeare will be with us too.

This is a cop-out. The things that are known about chemistry can be explained by someone who knows chemistry . . .The things that are known about Faith can be explained by those who know Faith . . . but those who don't know Faith are in the dark . . .

No... more like, "If you really are real, God, then help me understand what you are saying in this book." Then Nothing will answer you, Robin, as you said.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2006 08:17 PM

Well I've done a LOT of EXCELLENT explaining of the Bible and Christian doctrine on this site, and so have others here, but it doesn't get through despite our EXCELLENT and PLAIN and CLEAR exposition. As I said, if one has the gift one can certainly explain it. But if the hearer doesn't have the gift he can't hear it. Something like that.