Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-05-2014, 05:31 PM   #101
David Partington
Dojo: Reading Zenshin Aikido Club
Location: Reading
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex system that has been proven to be reducible without loss of function?
There are some examples in the following YouTube clip. It's only 11 minutes long but basically explains that :

1. Complex natural systems CAN evolve gradually through the accumulation of many small useful steps;
2. Systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" are often NOT;
3. Even systems that ARE irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 03:46 AM   #102
Sacha Cloetens
Dojo: Ban Sen Juku Leuven - Masakatsu Dojo
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15
Belgium
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
I History demonstrates that modern science has its roots in Christianity and a Biblical framework.
So Algebra has its roots in Christianity & a Biblical Framework?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra#History

.......or isn't algebra science?

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 07:01 AM   #103
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Wink Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
David Partington wrote: View Post
There are some examples in the following YouTube clip. It's only 11 minutes long but basically explains that :

1. Complex natural systems CAN evolve gradually through the accumulation of many small useful steps;
2. Systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" are often NOT;
3. Even systems that ARE irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
Thank you for the link - i watched it with interest but felt it failed to actually address Behe's argument at its strongest point: that being at a molecular biological level there are certain parts that are irreducibly complex. The video gave very clear diagrams for the so called intermediary stages of the development of the eye, but it was ultimately conjecture. It also attacks Behe's mousetrap analogy but no analogy is perfect it is just an aid. It also contradicts itself - it claims evolution does not happen with design in mind yet uses the counter analogy of a bridge to dismantle Behe's argument. But bridges are built by humans intentionally, by design! The last part I found perplexing, the narrator calls ID pseudoscience and appeals to a court case Behe was involved with, stating he admitted ID is not found in scientific peer review papers and thus the courts have proven ID is not real science. But since when has the legal system defined what science is? That is not a scientific way of proving whether something is scientific or not, and thus was complete propaganda.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 03:37 PM   #104
hughrbeyer
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Boston
Location: Peterborough, NH
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 653
United_States
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex system that has been proven to be reducible without loss of function?
Obviously not, since once proven to be reducible, it's not longer irreducibly complex. I can give you examples of systems that were claimed to be irreducibly complex until shown otherwise. Blood clotting is once such.

Quote:
Creation Science is not a god-of-the-gaps science or theology. It deals with real data.
I'm not sure you know what "god of the gaps" means. If I show you how the ATP cycle could have evolved through descent with modification, your god has just gotten a little bit smaller. My God doesn't require science to be broken.

Quote:
There has been much scholarly work done into the Bible - there are sceptical scholars and conservative scholars. Some accept the historicity of the Bible more than others. Some scholars point to so-called contradictions in Scripture. There are responses to those objections too. So yes the Bible is open to scrutiny.
But the end result always has to be that the bible is right, no matter how complex the scenario you have to create to make it so. The Gospellers can't even agree on the date of the Last Supper relative to Passover, or what kind of a meal it was. (The special pleading to resolve that one is a sight to behold.) To my mind this is in fact exactly one message of the bible--it is what it says it is--personal recollections, mostly second-hand, written long after the facts described. Errors, personal bias, and a little bit of fable are to be expected. Absolute Truth is not. But that shouldn't be a surprise--Jesus said the same, after all.

Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, any more than hammers prove carpenters don't exist.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 03:52 PM   #105
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 881
United_States
Offline
Freaky! Re: Old Testament Creationism

Wow. This thread is getting more play than an IP/Aiki thread of bygone days.
Maybe it's a substitute outlet for all that repressed energy...?

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 05:29 PM   #106
David Partington
Dojo: Reading Zenshin Aikido Club
Location: Reading
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote:
it failed to actually address Behe's argument at its strongest point: that being at a molecular biological level there are certain parts that are irreducibly complex.
I assume you are talking about Behe's bacterial flagellum example and if so, not being a cellular and molecular biologist, I am currently unable to fully appreciate the argument put forward in defence of Ken Miller's criticism so can't comment.

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote:
The video gave very clear diagrams for the so called intermediary stages of the development of the eye, but it was ultimately conjecture.
It is a fact that those different types of "eye" are found in nature. The theory of evolution is our current best explanation of how the differences "could" have come about. That's what scientific theories do - explain how "facts" could have arisen based on the available evidence. I think it was Carl Sagan who first? said "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence." The evidence for the theory of evolution really is exceptional.

Having said that, if it is one day accepted by science that certain bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex, that won't make the whole of the theory of evolution redundant -- just incomplete. A bit like Aeronautical Theory which, until recently, was unable to explain how bumblebees fly.

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote:
It also contradicts itself - it claims evolution does not happen with design in mind yet uses the counter analogy of a bridge to dismantle Behe's argument. But bridges are built by humans intentionally, by design!
The narrator admits that analogies using arches and mousetraps are unsatisfactory when talking about evolution hence the example of the venus fly trap which makes exactly the same point about precursors as the bridge example did.

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote:
thus the courts have proven ID is not real science. But since when has the legal system defined what science is?
Actually I thought the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District trial showed that the theory of intelligent design was simply a re-packaging of the Creationist Act, which was struck down by the US Supreme Court back in 1987 as being unconstitutional.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 08:30 PM   #107
tlk52
Dojo: Aikido of Park Slope/NY Aikikai
Location: NYC
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 84
United_States
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

I love this thread!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 09:47 PM   #108
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Hugh Beyer wrote: View Post
Obviously not, since once proven to be reducible, it's not longer irreducibly complex. I can give you examples of systems that were claimed to be irreducibly complex until shown otherwise. Blood clotting is once such.

I'm not sure you know what "god of the gaps" means. If I show you how the ATP cycle could have evolved through descent with modification, your god has just gotten a little bit smaller. My God doesn't require science to be broken.

But the end result always has to be that the bible is right, no matter how complex the scenario you have to create to make it so. The Gospellers can't even agree on the date of the Last Supper relative to Passover, or what kind of a meal it was. (The special pleading to resolve that one is a sight to behold.) To my mind this is in fact exactly one message of the bible--it is what it says it is--personal recollections, mostly second-hand, written long after the facts described. Errors, personal bias, and a little bit of fable are to be expected. Absolute Truth is not. But that shouldn't be a surprise--Jesus said the same, after all.
I`m well aware of what god of the gaps means, and my God doesn`t require science to be broken either, but what God do you believe in? If its the Biblical God then how do you theologically reconcile Him with evolutionary theory that - as you have been arguing - is a natural process?

The "Gospellers" as you call them wrote for different audiences and different purposes. Using the Last Supper as an example of Biblical inaccuracy (and therefore fallibility) is weak. They all agree on Jesus` death and resurrection and in Jesus` teachings - teachings that are contrary to evolutionary theory.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 11:42 PM   #109
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
David Partington wrote: View Post

Having said that, if it is one day accepted by science that certain bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex, that won't make the whole of the theory of evolution redundant -- just incomplete. A bit like Aeronautical Theory which, until recently, was unable to explain .
So what would make you doubt evolution?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 06:27 AM   #110
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,778
United_States
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

"the Biblical God"? So God is defined by a book? He better not get uppity and step outside what the book says he can do, then.

Said it before and I'll say it again: "They write books that contradict the books, then say that I wrote the books and the rocks are lies."
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 09:24 AM   #111
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 595
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Even the biblical god may be actually more then one, According to Karen Armstrong there may have been two.

The complete "A History of God" is available here (may be illegal)

The relevant paragraph:

Quote:
But who is Yahweh? Did Abraham worship the same God as Moses or did he know him by a different name? This would be a matter of prime
importance to us today but the Bible seems curiously vague on the subject and gives conflicting answers to this question, J says that men had
worshipped Yahweh ever since the time of Adam's grandson but in the sixth century, 'P' seems to suggest that the Israelites had never heard of
Yahweh until he appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush. P makes Yahweh explain that he really was the same God as the God of Abraham, as
though this were a rather controversial notion: he tells Moses that Abraham had called him 'El Shaddai' and did not know the divine name
Yahweh. {7} The discrepancy does not seem to worry either the biblical writers or their editors unduly. J calls his god 'Yahweh' throughout: by
the time he was writing, Yahweh was the God of Israel and that was all that mattered. Israelite religion was pragmatic and less concerned with
the kind of speculative detail that would worry us. Yet we should not assume that either Abraham or Moses believed in their God as we do
today. We are so familiar with the Bible story and the subsequent history of Israel that we tend to project our knowledge of later Jewish religion
back on to these early historical personages. Accordingly, we assume that the three patriarchs of Israel - Abraham, his son Isaac and grandson
Jacob - were monotheists who believed in only one God. This does not seem to have been the case. Indeed, it is probably more accurate to call
these early Hebrews pagans who shared many of the religious beliefs of their neighbours in Canaan. They would certainly have believed in the
existence of such deities as Marduk, Baal and Anat. They may not all have worshipped the same deity: it is possible that the God of Abraham,
the 'Fear' or 'Kinsman' of Isaac and the 'Mighty One' of Jacob were three separate gods. {8}

We can go further. It is highly likely that Abraham's God was El, the High God of Canaan. The deity introduces himself to Abraham as El
Shaddai (El of the Mountain), which was one of El's traditional tides. {9} Elsewhere he is called El Elyon (The Most High God) or El of
Bethel. The name of the Canaanite High God is preserved in such Hebrew names as Isra-El or Ishma-El. They experienced him in ways that
would not have been unfamiliar to the pagans of the Middle East. We shall see that centuries later Israelites found the mana or 'holiness' of
Yahweh a terrifying experience. On Mount Sinai, for example, he would appear to Moses in the midst of an awe-inspiring volcanic eruption
and the Israelites had to keep their distance. In comparison, Abraham's god El is a very mild deity. He appears to Abraham as a friend and
sometimes even assumes human form. This type of divine apparition, known as an epiphany, was quite common in the pagan world of
antiquity. Even though in general the gods were not expected to intervene directly in the lives of mortal men and women, certain privileged
individuals in mythical times had encountered their gods face to face. The Iliad is full of such epiphanies. The gods and goddesses appear to
both Greeks and Trojans in dreams, when the boundary between the human and divine worlds was believed to be lowered. At the very end of
the Iliad, Priam is guided to the Greek ships by a charming young man who finally reveals himself as Hermes. {10} When the Greeks looked
back to the golden age of their heroes, they felt that they had been closely in touch with the gods, who were, after all, of the same nature as
human beings. These stories of epiphanies expressed the holistic pagan vision: when the divine was not essentially distinct from either nature or
humanity, it could be experienced without a great fanfare. The world was full of gods, who could be perceived unexpectedly at any time,
around any corner or in the person of a passing stranger. It seems that ordinary folk may have believed that such divine encounters were
possible in their own lives: this may explain the strange story in the Acts of the Apostles when, as late as the first century CE, the apostle Paul
and his disciple Barnabas were mistaken for Zeus and Hermes by the people of Lystra in what is now Turkey."
Karen.Armstrong.-.A.History.Of.God.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 09:29 AM   #112
hughrbeyer
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Boston
Location: Peterborough, NH
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 653
United_States
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
I`m well aware of what god of the gaps means, and my God doesn`t require science to be broken either, but what God do you believe in? If its the Biblical God then how do you theologically reconcile Him with evolutionary theory that - as you have been arguing - is a natural process?

The "Gospellers" as you call them wrote for different audiences and different purposes. Using the Last Supper as an example of Biblical inaccuracy (and therefore fallibility) is weak. They all agree on Jesus` death and resurrection and in Jesus` teachings - teachings that are contrary to evolutionary theory.
OK, you're mostly not responding to my arguments at this point, but I'm interested in your last claim. What teaching of Jesus is contradictory to evolutionary theory?

Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, any more than hammers prove carpenters don't exist.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 10:34 AM   #113
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 595
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

BTW, on of these gods was definitely into taijitsu:
Quote:
And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.
When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.
Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
And he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob."
Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed."
Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him.
So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered."
The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip.
Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.
Genesis 32:22-32

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 11:27 AM   #114
Nicholas Eschenbruch
Dojo: TV Denzlingen
Location: Freiburg
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 308
Germany
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
"the Biblical God"? So God is defined by a book? He better not get uppity and step outside what the book says he can do, then.

Said it before and I'll say it again: "They write books that contradict the rocks, then say that I wrote the books and the rocks are lies."
Very small beings...
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 01:21 PM   #115
Lorien Lowe
Dojo: Northcoast Aikido
Location: California
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 289
Offline
Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
I am not dragging intolerance into the discussion - intolerance is a running theme throughout the discussion. Science is increasingly conducted within an atheistic framework. Methodological naturalism rules out supernatural intervention as a causal agent in the creation of the universe and of life on earth. Yet historically this hasn`t been the case. Take Sir Isaac Newton for example, one of the most important figures of the Scientific Revolution whose work in Mathematics and Science were groundbreaking and important in developing our understanding of the world today. And yet Newton also believed in God and in the creation account of Genesis 1. To argue we can`t make any progress under a theistic scientific model is just not born out by history. History demonstrates that modern science has its roots in Christianity and a Biblical framework.
Eben, you haven't been reading (or are selectively disregarding) some of the posts here. The Dr. who discovered collagen in T. rex bones is a very devoted Christian... and is NOT a young-earth creationist, and is disappointed in young-earth creationists who distort her research. Saying 'UR ATHEIST' is just a way to avoid having to deal with the evidence presented by scientists you disagree with.

As for naturalism: yes, science presupposes naturalism, because science is about testing hypotheses. There is no way to question the hypothesis, 'goddidit,' and so the whole inquiry necessarily stops once that is invoked as an answer.
Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
The geological and radiological data is debatable - Flood By Design by Mike Oard explains how the landscapes we see today and the geological strata are a result of the global Flood recorded in Genesis. Even secular geology accepts that fossilisation requires catastrophic, rapid processes and concedes that local floods could have caused this. Oard's flood paradigm is a powerful hypothesis, well worth reading.
The radiologic data do have variations, yes, but not to the degree of several orders of magnitude. Not to the degree of mistaking thousands of years for billions of years - more to the degree of mistaking 4.5 billion for 4.6 billion. As for floods: yes, floods happen, and yes, floods do sometimes coincide with fossilization events... sometimes. Drowning and subsequent sedimentary burial are *one* way that organisms can fossilize. Some of the richest fossil beds on earth, though, do not come from flood events; for example, the recent discoveries of late dinosaurs and early birds in China come from a region that experienced multiple volcanic eruptions where animals were killed and buried in volcanic ash.

In addition, many of the 'flood' columns that creationists point to are obviously not single, catastrophic floods, but repeated, smaller, periodic flood events, or a combination of flood events and gradualistic wear (for example, the Grand Canyon). It's not hard to tell the difference; even I, with one semester of geology 101, could show you the difference between the two.

Last edited by Lorien Lowe : 01-07-2014 at 01:31 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 01:40 PM   #116
Lorien Lowe
Dojo: Northcoast Aikido
Location: California
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 289
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex system that has been proven to be reducible without loss of function?
The format of the question betrays a misunderstanding of what evolution does. Of course the less-derived versions aren't going to function as well, or in the same way; if they did, the new mutation would not have become fixed in the population.
Quote:
Creation Science is not a god-of-the-gaps science or theology. It deals with real data.
But it ignores the 90% of the data that do not fit its paradigm.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 02:15 PM   #117
Demetrio Cereijo
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,910
Spain
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.

Like O Sensei... 'the man' had aiki


  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 07:14 PM   #118
David Partington
Dojo: Reading Zenshin Aikido Club
Location: Reading
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
So what would make you doubt evolution?
Within the context of our little exchange, I can honestly say I can interpret what you wrote in at least a couple of different ways.

Of course I could be completely wrong and the question you are actually asking isn't any of the ones I am thinking of. I am fortunate however that we are both still alive, we are both native English speakers (I assume) and I can ask you to clarify what you are actually asking?

There is a forum elsewhere on Aikiweb regarding the different translations of some Japanese text attributed to Morihei Ueshiba's undertaken by Chris Li and John Stevens. Is it "opening the feet at a 60 degree angle" or "open the feet in six directions"? Perhaps you know it?

Both translators had the same Japanese text, but their knowledge of the language and experience of the culture etc. led both men to make different translations. O'sensei died in 1969 so neither of them could ask the source to clarify the actual meaning of the text. So in less than 44 years, no one can be sure what the actual meaning of all the words attributed to O'sensei are. Additionally, if the words came via another person -- how can we be sure, word for word, everything O'sensei is supposed to have said was actually spoken by O'sensei? Have you played Chinese Whispers or seen two reporters accounts of the same incident?

With that in mind, if you had asked me your question in Greek, 2000 years ago, I definitely wouldn't know what you were asking because I can't speak Greek. My two choices would be to either learn Greek and obtain knowledge of the culture during the time your question was asked and translate your words directly or ask someone else to translate your words for me. Just as with O'sensei's text, it is likely that multiple translators will give me more than one possible translation in English. If I teach myself Greek and am able to read the original text then I can at least interpret my own meaning. If I want to use the words of a translator, the information comes to me second hand and I only have the translators' word that it is accurate. Perhaps that is why there are over 50 versions of the Bible in English.

How many Christians do you know have read the New Testament in its original Greek format? In my opinion, those who haven't need a lot more faith than those who have.

Anyway, going back to my being able to interpret what you wrote in number of different ways; you could say that I am just being awkward or I have a specific agenda or reason for interpreting you words in the way that I can. And you may be correct, but that wouldn't make either of the ways I can interpret the message behind your words wrong - unless you could clarify them.

But to answer your question in one way I can think of that would really make me doubt (the theory of) evolution would be thus:-

If the theory stated that, approximately 2000 years ago, some people had said they had seen millions of different varieties of flora and fauna upon the Earth but these were no longer evident and that the theory was written in a language I couldn't understand but hey, not to worry, there were more than 50 versions of this theory available in a language I could understand and if I was feeling especially lazy I could get someone else to give me their interpretation of the translated theory for me. Yes, I think that would make me doubt (the theory of) evolution.

Or to put it another way: "Αυτό που νομίζω ότι η θεωρία που ήθελε να πει ήταν…"

(Thank God for Google translate!)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 10:12 PM   #119
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
"the Biblical God"? So God is defined by a book? He better not get uppity and step outside what the book says he can do, then.

Said it before and I'll say it again: "They write books that contradict the books, then say that I wrote the books and the rocks are lies."
God is not defined by a book, but He is the author of a book...the Bible. Tell me Mary, is it faith that is so anathema to you or just what you perceive to be fundamentalism?

Quote:
Eben, you haven't been reading (or are selectively disregarding) some of the posts here. The Dr. who discovered collagen in T. rex bones is a very devoted Christian... and is NOT a young-earth creationist, and is disappointed in young-earth creationists who distort her research. Saying 'UR ATHEIST' is just a way to avoid having to deal with the evidence presented by scientists you disagree with.

As for naturalism: yes, science presupposes naturalism, because science is about testing hypotheses. There is no way to question the hypothesis, 'goddidit,' and so the whole inquiry necessarily stops once that is invoked as an answer.
I never claimed the scientist who made the discovery was an atheist and I am well aware there are Christians of different persuasions - theistic evolutionists, old earth creationists, intelligent designers etc. Just because they do not hold to a young-earth does not mean we cannot interpret the data for ourselves.

The second point I think is a straw man argument - history shows us this is not true. I already gave Sir Isaac Newton as an example, but others would include Robert Boyle and his work in chemistry, who played an important role in disproving the Aristotelian 4 humors theory. Then there is Kepler, the Wright Brothers, James Clark Maxwell pioneer of the electromagnetic radiation theory, Pastuer and his work on germ theory of disease. These mens beliefs in a Creator did not prevent them from moving science forward.

Quote:
It's not hard to tell the difference; even I, with one semester of geology 101, could show you the difference between the two.
Did your geology 101 class happen to work under the principle of uniformitarianism?

Quote:
OK, you're mostly not responding to my arguments at this point, but I'm interested in your last claim. What teaching of Jesus is contradictory to evolutionary theory?
Which arguments would those be? However, regarding Jesus` teachings see Mark 10:6-7 and Matthew 24:37-39.

"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.' ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,"

If evolution is true then human beings were not created from the beginning of creation because humanity came very late in the evolutionary time scale of the world. So either Jesus was lying or was ignorant (bearing in mind He is the Son of God - so He is neither capable of lying nor is ignorant of the origin of life). Also Jesus appeals to creation not naturalism, and then even more explicitly refers to God making them male and female - God made humanity. It does not say God made apes into human beings. Nor does He say God set the universe in motion and then allow it to evolve gradually through blind naturalistic processes.

"For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

Here Jesus affirms that Noah`s Flood was a real historical event as recorded in Genesis. Secular science rejects Noah`s Flood as historically factual.

Quote:
Even the biblical god may be actually more then one, According to Karen Armstrong there may have been two.
This person commits the logical fallacy of false cause - just because there are epiphanies in pagan religions this does not mean that Abraham and Moses merely borrowed from pagan religion. Abraham in his early life most probably believed in a pagan deity of some kind because he was called out of the city of Ur, which had a temple in it to the moon god Nanna. El Shaddai as creator God revealed Himself in contradistinction to the polytheism of the pagan gods of the Near East.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 02:56 AM   #120
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
David Partington wrote: View Post
Within the context of our little exchange, I can honestly say I can interpret what you wrote in at least a couple of different ways.

Of course I could be completely wrong and the question you are actually asking isn't any of the ones I am thinking of. I am fortunate however that we are both still alive, we are both native English speakers (I assume) and I can ask you to clarify what you are actually asking?

There is a forum elsewhere on Aikiweb regarding the different translations of some Japanese text attributed to Morihei Ueshiba's undertaken by Chris Li and John Stevens. Is it "opening the feet at a 60 degree angle" or "open the feet in six directions"? Perhaps you know it?

Both translators had the same Japanese text, but their knowledge of the language and experience of the culture etc. led both men to make different translations. O'sensei died in 1969 so neither of them could ask the source to clarify the actual meaning of the text. So in less than 44 years, no one can be sure what the actual meaning of all the words attributed to O'sensei are. Additionally, if the words came via another person -- how can we be sure, word for word, everything O'sensei is supposed to have said was actually spoken by O'sensei? Have you played Chinese Whispers or seen two reporters accounts of the same incident?

With that in mind, if you had asked me your question in Greek, 2000 years ago, I definitely wouldn't know what you were asking because I can't speak Greek. My two choices would be to either learn Greek and obtain knowledge of the culture during the time your question was asked and translate your words directly or ask someone else to translate your words for me. Just as with O'sensei's text, it is likely that multiple translators will give me more than one possible translation in English. If I teach myself Greek and am able to read the original text then I can at least interpret my own meaning. If I want to use the words of a translator, the information comes to me second hand and I only have the translators' word that it is accurate. Perhaps that is why there are over 50 versions of the Bible in English.

How many Christians do you know have read the New Testament in its original Greek format? In my opinion, those who haven't need a lot more faith than those who have.

Anyway, going back to my being able to interpret what you wrote in number of different ways; you could say that I am just being awkward or I have a specific agenda or reason for interpreting you words in the way that I can. And you may be correct, but that wouldn't make either of the ways I can interpret the message behind your words wrong - unless you could clarify them.

But to answer your question in one way I can think of that would really make me doubt (the theory of) evolution would be thus:-

If the theory stated that, approximately 2000 years ago, some people had said they had seen millions of different varieties of flora and fauna upon the Earth but these were no longer evident and that the theory was written in a language I couldn't understand but hey, not to worry, there were more than 50 versions of this theory available in a language I could understand and if I was feeling especially lazy I could get someone else to give me their interpretation of the translated theory for me. Yes, I think that would make me doubt (the theory of) evolution.

Or to put it another way: "Αυτό που νομίζω ότι η θεωρία που ήθελε να πει ήταν…"

(Thank God for Google translate!)
David, we were discussing scientific objections to evolution, the particular example was irreducible complexity. You made a statement in which you said even if science conceded that some things were irreducibly complex it wouldn`t make evolution redundant but reveal that its understanding of evolution was incomplete. This struck me as odd that you could supposedly still interpret contradictory evidence as being in support of evolution, which led to my question.

Your example of O`Sensei`s teachings being interpreted differently and thus being a more contemporary example of literature whose meaning is obscured by time and distance from original context, I don`t think is necessarily relevant to the point about scientific objections to evolution. However, regarding the objection that I think you are making to the Bible being a source of truth (or authority in this matter perhaps), Bible translators work from thousands of ancient manuscripts: in fact there are more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other in ancient literature. The translations are not just one translators arbitrary work; translation is guided by evaluating the entire body of manuscript evidence to ensure accuracy by groups of Greek and Hebrew experts. But it seems here like you`re throwing stones while living in a glass house. So Bible translators can`t be trusted, even though they are experts in their field, yet scientists can be, precisely because they are experts in their respective fields?

I find it ironic that evolutionists use the argument about methodological naturalism being about testing hypotheses and thus furthering science, when their answer is always evolution it seems! Looks like you begin with the answer to me and fit the evidence around it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 05:33 AM   #121
Carsten Möllering
 
Carsten Möllering's Avatar
Dojo: Hildesheimer Aikido Verein
Location: Hildesheim
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 815
Germany
Online
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
... is it faith that is so anathema to you or just what you perceive to be fundamentalism?
We have an official statement of the "Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD)", i.e. Evangelical (in the sens of protestant) Church of Germany which is the organization of all protestant churches in Germany that creationism is to be regarded as hindering Christian faith. Creationism is said to be incompatible to the testimony of the bible and to lead people away from Jesus Christ.
Which was also announced as the official line of the Roman Catholic Church here.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 08:58 AM   #122
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 595
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Demetrio Cereijo wrote: View Post
When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.

Like O Sensei... 'the man' had aiki

Yea! The father did have aiki!

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 09:01 AM   #123
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 595
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post

This person commits the logical fallacy of false cause - just because there are epiphanies in pagan religions this does not mean that Abraham and Moses merely borrowed from pagan religion. Abraham in his early life most probably believed in a pagan deity of some kind because he was called out of the city of Ur, which had a temple in it to the moon god Nanna. El Shaddai as creator God revealed Himself in contradistinction to the polytheism of the pagan gods of the Near East.
I think you should reread the quoted paragraph, you missed 90% of the content.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 09:37 AM   #124
hughrbeyer
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Boston
Location: Peterborough, NH
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 653
United_States
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
...regarding Jesus` teachings see Mark 10:6-7 and Matthew 24:37-39.

"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.' ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,"

If evolution is true then human beings were not created from the beginning of creation because humanity came very late in the evolutionary time scale of the world. So either Jesus was lying or was ignorant (bearing in mind He is the Son of God - so He is neither capable of lying nor is ignorant of the origin of life). Also Jesus appeals to creation not naturalism, and then even more explicitly refers to God making them male and female - God made humanity. It does not say God made apes into human beings. Nor does He say God set the universe in motion and then allow it to evolve gradually through blind naturalistic processes.
Oy. Well, thanks for answering my question (which was "What did Jesus ever say that contradicts the theory of evolution", btw). But your answer demonstrates the issues I have with the way you approach the bible. First, you've taken an off-the-cuff, introductory remark as a core point of the saying. I don't believe you can hang a cosmology from an off-hand remark quoted second-hand 2000 years ago.

Second, you choose to allow Jesus to be precise and imprecise according to your preference. Jesus' remark contradicts Genesis just as much as it does evolution. Man was not created on the first day but on the sixth; so man was not created male and female "from the beginning of creation" but from the sixth day of creation. OMG, Jesus lied or was mistaken. My faith crumbles.

Finally, you make a big deal about how Jesus just said "made" and nothing about how he made them, e.g. by evolving them over millenia. But why would he? That's not the point of what he was saying.

Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, any more than hammers prove carpenters don't exist. Quit making the atheists' arguments for them, please.

Evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist, any more than hammers prove carpenters don't exist.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 07:09 PM   #125
David Partington
Dojo: Reading Zenshin Aikido Club
Location: Reading
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Old Testament Creationism

Hi Ewen. Thanks for replying to my nonsense. I think I must have had a funny turn following my recent birthday. You know what they say…Another year older -- Another year wider! (at least in my case anyway.)

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
we were discussing scientific objections to evolution, the particular example was irreducible complexity.
I would have to assert that Behe's "theory" was not scientific. His observation about irreducible complexity as it would relate to the theory of evolution I thought, was actually quite insightful but his assertion that "it therefore must have been designed" cannot be tested so isn't science.

Now to answer the question I knew you were asking…
Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote:
So what would make you doubt evolution?
A theory has to fit the facts, not the other way around. If facts contradict the theory then either 1) the theory is wrong, 2) the theory is incomplete, 3) the facts are wrong.

The number of facts that currently support the theory of evolution are so numerous that I doubt enough contradictions could ever be found that would prove the theory was just plain wrong. I think it more plausible that if enough contradictions were ever found then the theory would have to be deemed incomplete and would therefore need to be re-defined to take the new facts into consideration. I have no idea how many contradictions would be required but I have yet to hear of any scientific facts that do contradict the theory.

Quote:
Ewen Ebsworth wrote: View Post
I find it ironic that evolutionists use the argument about methodological naturalism being about testing hypotheses and thus furthering science, when their answer is always evolution it seems!
If you can propose a theory that explains the past, present and any future facts better than the theory of evolution, provided it was based on science and not the supernatural, then scientists would use that theory instead. Actually, the theory wouldn't necessarily need to be better to be useful -- it could simply be a different explanation such as how light can be explained in both terms of waves as well as packets of energy.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:22 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate