tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1138241072573391580..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: When Will They Ever Learn?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger162125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80501927324208842812012-09-02T21:35:59.468-04:002012-09-02T21:35:59.468-04:00Funny, thats what we say about your type, as long ...Funny, thats what we say about your type, as long as it gets votes. Myself I would never believe a rat. I respect science fact and I strongly beieve in personal faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59360658111593076362011-10-20T11:23:36.877-04:002011-10-20T11:23:36.877-04:00Denny writes:
they simply report on press release...Denny writes:<br /><br /><i>they simply report on press releases, and do no further fact-checking, especially with complex scientific issues. I will look for more complete data on these recent findings.</i><br /><br />This is too frequently true, which is why I like to find one or more of the following: the papers themselves, discussions by the authors, or discussions of the research by others in the field.<br /><br />But you stated in comments here that evidence of human descent from hominids was lacking, <i>without having followed up on the media reports by seeking more complete data</i>, as you now say you will. <i>That's</i> what I'm referring to when I say you should be familiar with the subject matter if you want your part of the conversation to be worthwhile - not that you must come to the same conclusions, but that (1) you shouldn't be saying there are no data if you've been alerted to the fact there may be, and haven't done the follow-up reading; and (2) having done the follow-up, if you still have doubts, you should be prepared to give worthwhile, cogent reasons for those doubts.<br /> <br /><i>- Besides, if what you say is factual, then why was the hominid/human link repeatedly reported as certain before the recent findings?</i><br /><br />The hominid/human link is extremely well supported by a tremendous amount of genetic and fossil evidence. The recent findings have to do with new details emerging regarding the relationship between a particular group of hominids, the Neanderthals, and modern humans.<br /> <br /><i>- Respectfully, do you mean that I must share your worldview and believe in evolution and put my faith in materialist thinking to be perceived as informed?</i><br /><br />With respect, no. See above.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75931407487229172182011-10-20T11:06:19.100-04:002011-10-20T11:06:19.100-04:00Denny asked which papers I was referring to regard...Denny asked which papers I was referring to regarding interbreeding between Neanderthals and "modern" humans' ancestors.<br /><br />I wasn't referring to the papers you cited, though I remember reading through at least one of them. I was referring to the following discussions and the papers cited therein:<br /><br />http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/neandertal-genes-x-chromosome-hapmap-2011.html ("The haplotype with the strongest signature -- 100-kb interval encompassing 26 SNPs in the Vindija 33.16 genome, is found in more than 15 (and centrally, in 22) CEU individuals and in no African individuals. The interval spans across part of the DMD gene (associated with Duchenne's muscular dystrophy). Conveniently, this is precisely the interval identified by Yotova and colleagues [3] as a site with Neandertal-derived alleles in non-African populations. They used comparisons at the sequence level, finding the Neandertal-derived variant at a frequency of 9% overall outside Africa.")<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110809/full/476136a.html ("Since then, scientists have fleshed out the details of one of the biggest surprises from the Neanderthal genome: humans living outside Africa owe up to 4% of their DNA to Neanderthals. One explanation might be that humans migrating out of Africa mated with Neanderthals, probably resident in the Middle East, before their offspring fanned out across Europe and Asia.<br /><br />"By comparing individual DNA letters in multiple modern human genomes with those in the Neanderthal genome, the date of that interbreeding has now been pinned down to 65,000–90,000 years ago. Montgomery Slatkin and Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, theoretical geneticists from the University of California, Berkeley, presented the finding at the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution meeting in Kyoto, Japan, held on 26–30 July.")<br /><br /><br />http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/abi-rached-hla-class-1-neandertals.2011.html ("Neandertal genes presently account for around 3 percent of the genomes of people outside Subsaharan Africa.")<br /><br />http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/europe-china-neandertal-comparisons-2011.html ("This is very striking. China and Europe by and large have different Neandertal-derived haplotypes.")Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73350906608352308222011-10-20T08:49:43.628-04:002011-10-20T08:49:43.628-04:00Denny,
Allan said, “If we pause for a breather at...Denny,<br /><br /><i>Allan said, “If we pause for a breather at the 'species boundary', the set of all humans, it is clear that we all share genetic relationship …” <br /><br />Where do you see a factual genetic pathway link between humans and hominids, aside from the fact that humans and hominids have optimized anatomical, biological, and genetic templates dictated by the unique carbon based life-sustaining qualities of planet Earth?</i><br /><br />Well, in a strict sense, unless we have some of their DNA, we can only infer relationship based upon morphology, and even that upon rather fewer bones than we might like. So it is at least <i>possible</i> that hominids bear no relationship by descent from the Human-Chimp-Neanderthal clade. <br /><br />However, genetic evidence on <i>that</i> clade abounds, because we have human, chimp and Neanderthal DNA to play with. DNA is copied. We see that in action. Mistakes are made. We see that too. So if we see a 'mistake' in the DNA that is present in humans, chimps and Neanderthals, but not in any other primate group, what, other than distaste for the notion of kinship, would lead us to any other conclusion than that that piece of DNA descends by direct copying from a common ancestor - the one in which the mistake first appeared? We are not simply talking functional sequences here, but sequences that make no difference to the organism. Of course, your convictions will lead you to conclude that we can never be <i>certain</i> that these sequences make no difference. What, then, if we find them missing from some perfectly healthy individuals? And if this pattern is seen again and again, in sequence after sequence after sequence? One such instance might be deniable. Two, three, four ... but eventually, I think honesty (and NOT a desire to sustain an atheistic worldview!!!) must lead one to accept that the data points where it points: Common Descent of humans and chimps.<br /><br />On morality: a significant part of what keeps me from 'transgressing' is simply an awareness of <i>earthly</i> sanctions. I'm not stupid; I kind of know that wives don't take kindly to infidelity, and where that can lead! If, as you believe, morality has an external, divine source, we find ourselves at a loss to explain why we do not always come up to scratch. The religious invoke some kind of a vague free-will-malleable 'tendency', not a firm rule. Which is pretty much how genetic, social or empathetic explanations would work too. I don't think you can invoke the existence of a sense of right and wrong as evidence of a divine origin.Allan Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53855046042425791862011-10-20T08:12:40.601-04:002011-10-20T08:12:40.601-04:00Jud said, “There have been recent papers showing t...Jud said, “There have been recent papers showing that Neanderthals and "humans" (i.e., our ancestors) did "exchange DNA" (procreate), and that as a result, a percentage of our current DNA is traceable to the Neanderthals.” – Are you referring to: <br />- The paper on: Microfossils in calculus demonstrate consumption of plants and cooked foods in Neanderthal diets (Shanidar III, Iraq; Spy I and II, Belgium), or<br />- The paper in the journal Cell in 1997.3 German researchers compared a fragment of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (painstakingly recovered from a 40,000- to 100,000-year-old skeleton found in West Germany)?Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67029539108200279422011-10-20T08:00:44.325-04:002011-10-20T08:00:44.325-04:00Jud said, “There have been recent papers showing t...Jud said, “There have been recent papers showing that Neanderthals and ‘humans’ (i.e., our ancestors) did ‘exchange DNA’ (procreate),” – I did see the media reports, but I don’t trust the media – they simply report on press releases, and do no further fact-checking, especially with complex scientific issues. I will look for more complete data on these recent findings. <br />- Besides, if what you say is factual, then why was the hominid/human link repeatedly reported as certain before the recent findings? <br />- Respectfully, do you mean that I must share your worldview and believe in evolution and put my faith in materialist thinking to be perceived as informed?<br /><br />I’m interested in all aspects of natural science, but I am not a professional. Since the vast majority of people are not professionals, it seems that they cannot have the ‘scientifically informed’ views of you and the Sandwalk fans either, which shape non-material views like the ones you recently expressed re. morals. <br />- Does that leave me the vast majority of people (when it comes to beliefs about issues like materialism and morals) in an inferior position? If so, why?<br /><br />Jud said, “if you want your part of the conversation to be worthwhile.” – I’m quite confident that the scientific sources to which I have access are the same as yours. The difference is that I see the source data through two lenses, one naturalistic/materialistic and one theistic. As I have said before, one reason I visit Sandwalk is to get out of my world for a while and see inside the mind of materialists. The other is to take any appropriate opportunities to mention nature’s creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, which makes any conversation worthwhile.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7560104777582050862011-10-18T07:43:49.551-04:002011-10-18T07:43:49.551-04:00Denny writes:
To the best of my knowledge, Neande...Denny writes:<br /><br /><i>To the best of my knowledge, Neanderthals were the only hominids to co-exist with humans, but exchanged no DNA with humans and show no archeological, anthropological, morphological, paleontological, genetic or ‘moral’ similarities to humans.</i><br /><br />Then the best of your knowledge is inadequate in this case. There have been recent papers showing that Neanderthals and "humans" (i.e., our ancestors) did "exchange DNA" (procreate), and that as a result, a percentage of our current DNA is traceable to the Neanderthals. The Neanderthal genome has been sequenced, and there are profound genetic similarities between the Neanderthal genome and that of contemporary Homo sapiens, which also of course means there are profound morphological similarities.<br /><br />In this as in much else you've posted, you're led astray by your lack of knowledge of science. Whatever sources you're getting your impressions of the state of science from, I'd advise you to stop relying on them, and start putting some work into learning about these subjects, at least at the level of an interested amateur, if you're going to be entering into topical discussions on blogs like this one.<br /><br />Regarding Neanderthals and other topics relevant to human evolution, John Hawks' weblog is a nice, convenient starting point. But it's only a starting point. You made a remark a while back that it sounded as if I knew some Scripture. That's a good thing in a discussion of a particular part of the Bible, isn't it? Same goes for science discussions. If you're going to have conversations about it, some knowledge and familiarity are good things to have - essential, really, if you want your part of the conversation to be worthwhile.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28273068944988522752011-10-17T21:48:27.898-04:002011-10-17T21:48:27.898-04:00(Cont)
God gives each of us a temporary life, so ...(Cont)<br /><br />God gives each of us a temporary life, so that we can volitionally choose His permanent cure. No other logical scenario exists that would allow a person to respond to true love (no matter one’s education, looks, health, status, etc.) and enter the realm of a personal relationship with the Universe’s supreme creator. The Abrahamic story is but one of many historical accounts, and many more contemporary accounts of people either accepting or rejecting God’s cure. No other scenario exists that can cure man of his imperfect condition, or give ultimate purpose and meaning to life with and beyond our molecules.<br /><br />Close admission #1? I may have stated 100,000 years because science tells us that Homo-Sapiens appear on the scene between then and 40,000 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, Neanderthals were the only hominids to co-exist with humans, but exchanged no DNA with humans and show no archeological, anthropological, morphological, paleontological, genetic or ‘moral’ similarities to humans. <br /><br />Close admission #2? I would argue, as would the Bible, that human morality (right or wrong) is written by God on the hearts (mind/conscience) of each person (Romans 2:15). Immoral behavior is a perversion of how we were originally ‘made.’ Cultural acceptance of child sacrifice may change over time, but I’ll bet that cultural norms never trumped the offense in the hearts of parents as they saw their children (infants to adolescents) taken to slaughter.<br /><br />For different reasons, I would agree that non-believers do have a foundation for right moral conduct – it’s written on their hearts. Personally, I think that the notion that morals can change like the weather are no more than cultural norms and not morals. I believe a good definition of the word would tie it to the concept of ethics, which have a more lasting, objective, code of conduct meaning.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7180518805571124272011-10-17T21:45:11.242-04:002011-10-17T21:45:11.242-04:00Jud, morals are important. No question! But, spa...Jud, morals are important. No question! But, space and time do not permit me to top available scholarship (much online) on the Abrahamic story, its moral implications, and what a contemporary response might be. If the Abrahamic story were alone as the central story of the Bible’s message, I would try harder to make sense of it. But it is not. God always knew what Abraham would do with Isaac, and He always knew what would be written about Abraham and Isaac, but Abraham didn’t yet know what he would do in response to the invisible God, just like we don’t know what we’re going to do with the same proposition. It is important for all of us to know the ‘whole’ story, a story that is revealed in the Bible. It isn’t a better-told story that will “go a long way toward removing moral authority from those” who behave immorally. It is the remedy for the greater condition that afflicts people and causes immorality – perceived or real.<br /><br />Your points are good, but limited to human consciousness and molecules. The most “moral” living and “right conduct” can never lift us up above our individual flaws or to God’s natural righteous perfect condition. We are imperfect. Putting us together with God would be like me with a sniffley coughing contagious flu going into a germ-free room maintained for making cancer medicine. But, God wants us to experience His perfect love by bridging the barrier of our imperfections and taking us to the realization of all our deepest longings, currently stifled by an imperfect world. What’s more? He invites us to eventually live with Him outside the severe four-dimensional limits that constrain us, and free us from the consequences of immoral behavior, our and others.<br /><br />But, one condition! We must, 1) acknowledge our imperfect condition and the negative unintended consequences that result, and 2) accept His cure for it. It shouldn’t be too much to admit the imperfect condition that afflicts each of us. His cure is Christ, because Christ was the perfect sacrifice to redeem us from the negative unintended consequences of our imperfections. Just like Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, God actually did sacrifice His perfect Son to pay the price we never could for our imperfections – not in some abstract form, but in the reality of human life. (Cont)Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62802762277909419822011-10-17T15:50:15.511-04:002011-10-17T15:50:15.511-04:00Denny, I'll couch what I currently intend to b...Denny, I'll couch what I currently intend to be my last remarks on the Bible-as-the-source-of-morality vs. people-as-the-source-of-morality mini-thread in terms of my own views, because I expect that you will disagree. :-) I appreciate your willingness to be forthcoming about some of the sources of that disagreement (e.g., your reliance on interpretations of guidance from the "one true God" as your source for right conduct).<br /><br />I agree with you that the ancient vintage of the Abraham-Isaac story is a key concept in thinking about the moral lessons to be drawn from it. <br /><br />I think the people writing that story lived in a world where kings were absolute rulers who could do whatever they wished, and their subjects were virtually powerless to object. Thus when the King of Kings told Abraham to prepare to sacrifice his child, something that seems quite horrible and immoral to us today, this was almost insignificant to the ancient writers. It was simply an instance of "He's the King, he can command whatever he wants." The real lesson for the ancients was that God the King showed mercy, telling readers the God they were being asked to follow was not only powerful (that was of course claimed for all gods), but merciful as well and thus to be trusted (cf. the rainbow and God's covenant not to destroy the world again).<br /><br />But what is missing from the ancient narrative is something that to me would have elevated its moral lesson to a higher plane. What if Abraham had outright refused to sacrifice Isaac, saying a morally just God would not require this, and God, rather than punishing Abraham for disobedience, would have said in effect "That's right. I will never require from you that which is morally abhorrent, so if you hear anyone claiming to speak in My name asking you to do morally abhorrent things, don't listen." Such a lesson would have gone a long way toward removing moral authority from those who have claimed through history to be acting with or for God when carrying out atrocities or otherwise acting unjustly.<br /><br />The fact I can think of variations of the Bible story that (at least to me) might teach superior moral lessons is IMO yet another illustration that the foundation of morality is in us, not the Bible text. In fact, there are two instances in which I feel you've come dangerously close to admitting this. :-)<br /><br />They are -<br /><br />- when you dated the initiation of moral conduct among humans to circa 100,000 years ago, certainly pre-dating the Bible; and<br /><br />- when you allowed that people of today would view the Abraham-Isaac story differently than the ancients (and in some respects very unfavorably). Where did that change in moral judgment come from, since the Bible text remains unaltered? (Compare and contrast the behavior of those who base continuing objections to, e.g., gay marriage on ancient Biblical passages.)<br /><br />Thus I would not agree that non-believers lack a foundation for right moral conduct. Rather I think non-believers locate that moral foundation correctly, in ourselves as a culture and a society, with shared but changing standards of what is morally acceptable (e.g., gradual elimination of the death penalty from national justice systems), rather than in the unchanging words of an ancient text.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86057640945161955252011-10-17T13:41:10.497-04:002011-10-17T13:41:10.497-04:00Jud said, “Pity the poor Jews who've been read...Jud said, “Pity the poor Jews who've been reading that bit about ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’ incorrectly all these years. They obviously haven't taken the broad hint that God sent Jesus to Earth as a Jew to tell us all that Jews must change religions rather than following Jesus' example, or be damned.” – Well, Jud, I must admit that I am unable to discern exactly where you are coming from. But, here are some replies.<br /><br />First of all, no one is capable of “following Jesus’ example” to the letter. That’s why He’s called the Savior and not Advisor or Coach.<br /><br />Second, “Pity” anyone who has other gods before Jehovah.<br /><br />Third, I don’t know the circles in which you travel. The ones in which I travel contain Jews that ‘do’ recognize that the Messiah prophesied by the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible and The Christian Old Testament) is Jesus (Christ the Messiah) – even Jews from Israel, even Rabbis. Your statement implies that God has not clearly revealed Himself throughout history, but still holds people negatively accountable for their ignorance. If that were true, he would be a god unworthy of followers. I fear you are trying to reduce the Bible and whatever you know about Christianity to the level of a cheap novel, and soap opera gossip, and I don’t know what to do in response. Finally, you may recall, since you seem to have an awareness of scripture, that Jesus looked straight into the eyes of many Jews and was accepted by some and rejected by others. There goes that free-will choice thing again. We (human beings) all have it. Jesus’ message about Himself and His Father were indeed "Loud and clear." The record of His life, death, and resurrection (consistent with Tanakh prophecy) is better documented than any other historical event or person by magnitudes. The fact that an imperfect world can cloud our understanding, in no way diminishes the fact that people still hear of Jesus and accept or deny Him.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81393889600595270552011-10-17T11:17:23.917-04:002011-10-17T11:17:23.917-04:00Jud said, “You would surely think anyone you saw t...Jud said, “You would surely think anyone you saw today who had tied up his son and was holding a knife was prepared to do something utterly immoral, yes?” – Jud, you used the proper qualifier, “today,” which means in part the view of a Western Christian influenced civilization. I would have thought that you would be aware that the Middle Eastern civilizations of Abraham’s day had long sanctioned child sacrifice. Therefore, in the context of the passage on which you focus, such an act was not culturally unknown or immoral. I reiterate, from my non-scholarly layman’s understanding, the outcome predicted from God to Abraham (The father and his son would return to Abraham’s waiting servants) is the surprise. God is introducing 1) a new view of the value of human life that eschews child sacrifice, and 2) the God who abhors it. This new morality will take centuries to rollout through the lives of the Jewish people, and their trials and tribulations within surrounding pagan cultures.<br /><br />Jud, said, “you would immediately, viscerally think was immoral outside the Biblical context. You bring the morality, not the text.” – I don’t see it that way. Until relatively recently, outside of a “Biblical context,” child sacrifice was neither unknown nor immoral for millennia within many cultures ranging across the globe. <br /><br />Jud said, “C'mon, Denny, you know that same reasoning could be used to excuse any number of acts that you would readily agree are moral atrocities. You don't see immorality here only because you believe Abraham has faith in the right leader.” - Absolutely! I agree that the “same reasoning could be used to excuse any number of acts” (as often happens). Additionally, everything can’t be true or there would be no truth (Materialism?). Truth only has meaning because there is falsehood. Neither is a materialist notion. I am not a pantheist or polytheist. I believe there is one true God. I, within my human limits, follow the same God as Abraham, who tells me not to take innocent life, but may sanction killing in self-defense.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63583242417124806262011-10-17T09:56:07.305-04:002011-10-17T09:56:07.305-04:00Allan Miller said, “The ‘hard sciences’ have nothi...Allan Miller said, “The ‘hard sciences’ have nothing to say on human origins and no sciences have anything to say on human ‘purpose’” – Wow! Again, I encounter a bias toward your hard science peers, which continues to mystify me. Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, and Planck might disagree with your arbitrary statement. Moving from a steady-state universe to the Big Bang seems like a pretty strong statement about hard science findings and human origins, especially since naturalists tried so hard and so long to debunk Einstein’s idea about General Relativity and its origins implications. Nobel laureate Earnest Rutherford said, “In science there is only physics; everything else is stamp collecting.” Further quoting Rutherford, “Of all created comforts, God is the lender; you are the borrower, not the owner.” Even one of your soft science peers, Antony Flew, might have disagreed with you. Quoting Flew, “Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formatted, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God.” I believe the persuasive data for Flew was the human genome. <br /><br />Allan said, “What evolution-sceptical physicists etc ought to do is understand biology, particularly that which pertains to evolution.” - It sounds like you have switched from being a scientist to being a cheerleader. Personally, I give respect and credence to both the simple and complex sciences. Interpretation is another matter (based on worldview). Interestingly, when The Barna Group took a poll in 2008 asking, "Do Atheists Live with Purpose?" the findings showed that, “Skeptics have replaced faith with a passion for healthy longevity and personal pleasure gained through world travel, sexual experiences, and obtaining knowledge. They are substantially less focused on relationships and legacy than are other groups. They tend to be less concerned about finding or pursuing a purpose in life because a majority of them believe life has no purpose beyond comfort and pleasure.”<br /><br />Regarding your wife’s cat, be grateful it allows you to come home each night.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35988552739423450842011-10-17T08:29:42.246-04:002011-10-17T08:29:42.246-04:00After Denny quoted Shakespeare’s Act 4, Scene 4 of...After Denny quoted Shakespeare’s Act 4, Scene 4 of Hamlet and added - In other words, are humans nothing more than beasts sleeping and eating satisfying our physical needs till inevitable death? Allan Miller said, “Why not? In my opinion, what makes life worth living are the ‘pleasures of the flesh’.” - Well! It’s certainly no sin to enjoy being a human. A Christian view would, like yours, appreciate the life given to us, which obviously includes the physical. The Bible contains no shortage of ‘pleasures of the flesh’ accounts. It does seem ironic, however, that you “… don’t need to live in fear of some vengeful deity …” but you do fear the potential consequences of “indulg[ing] my attraction to the former.” It seems to me that your acknowledgement of the consequences of volitional behavior reveals more of a Biblical guide vs. an evolutionary guide. It seems obvious to me that most of the animal kingdom would not make such a volitional distinction, likely because they lack the same relational nature demonstrated by humans. Also, your characterization of God as vengeful deity illustrates a profound misunderstanding of scripture. God is love. Love provides many things. It also requires (as alluded to by you) justice. Justice requires a Judge who makes righteous decisions. Carefully examined and taken in total, not read selectively and with cynicism, the Bible reveals a Just and Loving God. <br /><br />Denny said, “why do atheists care about things like morality?” Allan replied, “Why should they not? Being atheist does not mean ceasing to be human. Morality exists – but only in the minds of humans.” – Well, from an evolutionary perspective, it seems to me that morality would not offer any greater physical natural selection advantage. To me, morality only seems to offer an ethereal advantage. <br /><br />Allan said, “It’s piss-easy to be faithful when you’re charmless and ugly!” – your self-deprecation makes you attractive.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55497204751475218622011-10-17T07:44:26.789-04:002011-10-17T07:44:26.789-04:00Denny writes:
I see no immorality in God asking A...Denny writes:<br /><br /><i>I see no immorality in God asking Abraham to demonstrate his acceptance of the unseen divine One’s instructions, painfully hard as it surely was,</i><br /><br />That's exactly my point. You would surely think anyone you saw today who had tied up his son and was holding a knife was prepared to do something utterly immoral, yes? So when you read of exactly the same thing occurring in the Bible, why do you think it is an illustration of moral conduct? Because all of the scholarly and ministerial **interpretations** you've heard and read have told you so, and that is the context with which you approach the story when you read it yourself. You and the other interpreters of the Biblical text have brought your own moral gloss to a situation (a man stands over his bound son with a knife) that you would immediately, viscerally think was immoral outside the Biblical context. You bring the morality, not the text.<br /><br /><i>any more than I see any immorality in a soldier accepting training aimed at killing an enemy. The soldier must have ‘faith’ in his cause and his leaders. The Abraham and Isaac story contain many meanings; among them is the necessity of ‘faith.’</i><br /><br />Sorry, I missed the codicil to "Thou shalt not kill" that exempts all soldiers who have faith in their cause and their leaders. C'mon, Denny, you know that same reasoning could be used to excuse any number of acts that you would readily agree are moral atrocities. You don't see immorality here only because you believe Abraham has faith in the right leader.<br /><br />I would hope people would *not* draw the lesson from the story of Abraham and Isaac that people must have faith when the "right" leader asks them to kill. To me, this lesson you have drawn from the Biblical text is immoral.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82363714762728417962011-10-17T07:21:27.368-04:002011-10-17T07:21:27.368-04:00It does make one point “loud and clear” – Jesus is...<i>It does make one point “loud and clear” – Jesus is God.</i><br /><br />Pity the poor Jews who've been reading that bit about "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" incorrectly all these years. They obviously haven't taken the broad hint that God sent Jesus to Earth as a Jew to tell us all that Jews must change religions rather than following Jesus' example, or be damned.<br /><br />"Loud and clear" indeed.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19184953565816905972011-10-16T21:53:59.252-04:002011-10-16T21:53:59.252-04:00Jud said, “What would be … as a demonstration of l...Jud said, “What would be … as a demonstration of loyalty to him?” – The Abrahamic event is not about loyalty. God doesn’t ‘need’ loyal followers. He’s God. He doesn’t ‘need’ anything. He ‘wants’ people to choose Him of their own free will. Because He wants them to know love. They can’t choose unless there are choices. There are no choices if every choice is good. It can’t have been easy for Abraham to choose to be involved with an unseen being who asked for difficult choices.<br /><br />Jud said, “Think about this carefully, Denny, and you will realize we are imposing our own moral interpretation on an immoral text. The morality comes from us, not the book.” –I see no immorality in God asking Abraham to demonstrate his acceptance of the unseen divine One’s instructions, painfully hard as it surely was, any more than I see any immorality in a soldier accepting training aimed at killing an enemy. The soldier must have ‘faith’ in his cause and his leaders. The Abraham and Isaac story contain many meanings; among them is the necessity of ‘faith.’Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48733202893656665792011-10-16T21:25:33.610-04:002011-10-16T21:25:33.610-04:00Jud said, “There are several problems with this. (...Jud said, “There are several problems with this. (You knew I was going to say that, didn't you?) The first half of your explanation contradicts the second.” – There does ‘appear’ to be a contradiction. But, it’s not a contradiction to be asked to do something and not know how the hoped for result is going to be achieved. I honestly don’t know how to present this to you, since you do not accept spiritual reality. There are (as I suspect you already know) many scholarly interpretations of this Abrahamic event. My non-scholarly and unfairly brief interpretation of the one ‘apparent’ contradiction you mention is that God is concerned with testing Abraham – not because God doesn’t know what Abraham is going to do, but because Abraham needs what God is going to do. God plans to make Abraham responsible for establishing a new nation of people – a nation from which the Messiah (Jesus) will emerge, and a nation that will separate itself from all other nations in terms of its culture and religious practices – not the least of these differences will be the rejection of child sacrifice. The account of Abraham’s test is not one of rhetorical logic for debate three thousand years later, but one of human will in response to the unseen God.<br /><br />Jud said, “Surely if a point about right moral conduct is being made, it should be done loud and clear?” – The Bible is not a dime store novel - read once and put on the bookshelf. It is not an instructional manual, although it does contain instructions. The Bible is a love letter from God to all His children (humans) that takes on expanded meaning for its readers, as they go through life’s experiences. Jud, have you ever noticed the nuances in a love letter that might escape someone outside the relationship? It does make one point “loud and clear” – Jesus is God. Acceptance or rejection of Him determines one’s eternal fate.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16419301175719964362011-10-16T20:13:53.765-04:002011-10-16T20:13:53.765-04:00Allan, as a follow-up to the “accelerated evolutio...Allan, as a follow-up to the “accelerated evolution” issue, and your notion that Homo sapiens are apes, see http://www.reasons.org/evolution/humans-vs-chimps/becoming-human-fast .Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44552603118867368092011-10-16T20:00:00.938-04:002011-10-16T20:00:00.938-04:00Allan Miller said, “We simply do not see a discont...Allan Miller said, “We simply do not see a discontinuity between species that special-creation events would lead us to expect.” – My friends at Reasons To Believe tell me that the term “accelerated evolution” (rate of change in the DNA of a species that appear to far exceed the expected evolutionary rate) has “increased in use from three per year in the 1990’s to a current average of 27 per year. Clearly, the availability of more DNA sequence data is contributing to this trend.” (Second and third quotes from RTB) Allan, it’s obvious to progressive (old earth) creationists that the increased rate of change (“accelerated evolution”) is an indication of “special-creation events”, not gradual or even punctuated equilibrium evolution. How do you respond to the increased rate of change discoveries?Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18038863887006837682011-10-16T18:07:35.408-04:002011-10-16T18:07:35.408-04:00Allan Miller said, “All of our genes come from com...Allan Miller said, “All of our genes come from common ancestors.” – Allan, your explanation is clear and solid, from an evolutionary view. Your implication that the truth of local level recent human genetic evidence makes the ancient hominid evidence true as well is not scientific fact, however. It is theoretical. That’s fine. I’m OK with testable theory, even evolutionary theory, which is scientifically challengeable. Once you and other atheists propose that (evolutionary) scientific theory rightly influences areas outside its testable boundaries, however, like the more altruistic human-specific values of good and evil, I think it leads to an evolutionary atheistic materialistic dead-end, which is that there is no apparent ‘ultimate’ rational purpose meaning or value for the evolutionary process (life on earth by accident), which is by all the laws of astronomy and physics (those hard science folks) headed for inevitable universal physical extinction. Therefore, even if scientists discover an evil gene, what will result? 1930’s eugenics and later Hitler carried the thought of genetic manipulation for the common good (including anti-religion) even further. The Christian proposition is that there is an ultimate rational purpose and meaning for the existence of humans and every element of their (designed) physical existence. Grossly oversimplified, that purpose is that humans, greater than all other living creatures, have life and the opportunity to experience true love through a relationship with the creator whose power and handiwork is so admired by naturalistic scientists in the realms that stretch from the quantum to the cosmic. Again (grossly oversimplified), many scientists, even within the halls of atheistic academia, have rationally seen the natural and supernatural as congruent. I have cited a few who have found not only no disagreement between natural science and ‘faith’, but have also found that ‘relationship.’<br /><br />Allan said, “If we pause for a breather at the 'species boundary', the set of all humans, it is clear that we all share genetic relationship …” - Where do you see a factual genetic pathway link between humans and hominids, aside from the fact that humans and hominids have optimized anatomical, biological, and genetic templates dictated by the unique carbon based life-sustaining qualities of planet Earth?Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44581842199957670162011-10-13T10:05:30.973-04:002011-10-13T10:05:30.973-04:00Denny writes:
[T]he meaning of words like “feelin...Denny writes:<br /><br />[T]<i>he meaning of words like “feeling” and “mind” are distinct from one another.</i><br /><br />Jeremiah, as you noted, refers to "minds" and "hearts." I compared Jeremiah's "hearts," not "minds," to feelings.<br /><br /><i>Evolutionists factually attribute the development of human characteristics (mind and emotion) to common descent, even though there is no biological (fossil) pathway from hominids to humans (or even between most hominids). Every public venue (e.g. National Geographic and Scientific American) article I have seen that trumpets a link between hominids and humans has later been shown to lack a factual biological pathway.</i><br /><br />You might wish to expand your reading beyond popular magazines, to academic articles (there are literally thousands available to the public) and books (support your local libraries). The genetic evidence of chimp/human common ancestry, and for human evolution from other hominids, is quite overwhelming. The fossil evidence, though necessarily incomplete (but getting better all the time as more fossils are unearthed), is absolutely consistent with those conclusions as well. If you don't think the work of tens of thousands of conscientious scientists over more than a century is convincing, then please show me the greater contrary evidence in favor of humans "suddenly appearing" out of the blue. I eagerly await the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles you must surely be relying on, if that number of peer-reviewed journal articles is inadequate to convince you of the evolutionary explanation. And I mean peer-reviewed articles with scientific evidence showing "sudden appearance" of humans lacking any hominid ancestry.<br /><br /><i>What’s puzzling to me is that you use the word “good” (a qualitative ‘non-material’ characterization that can only apply if there is some uniform or pseudo-uniform standard to which something is ‘judged’). Morals (felt or thought) only apply if there is a specific agreed upon (non-material) standard.</i><br /><br />Really? The next time you tell your wife dinner was "good," be sure to refer her to the specific uniform or pseudo-uniform agreed-upon standard on which you base that judgment. As with tastes in food, judgments as to what is 'good' in human conduct vary somewhat (to a Jew, Christ on a cross in the front of a church is idolatry), but there are tremendous commonalities. As with food, these proceed not from any agreed-upon text (what, we're all supposed to have read Julia Child or Bocuse before we can say dinner was good?), but from something innate and/or in the early developmental environment. (Again, studies have shown moral sense develops before/without having read the Bible, or for that matter other texts considered to be morally authoritative.)<br /><br /><i>Again, morals imply a Biblical perspective, not an evolutionary one.</i><br /><br />I don't know that morals "imply an evolutionary perspective," though it does seem as if it might aid survival if we didn't all kill each other, don't you think? Regarding morals implying a Biblical perspective, unless you are claiming it is moral for leaders to test/demonstrate their followers' devotion by telling the followers to kill their children, as God apparently commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, then it is certainly our own innate moral sense that lends a moral perspective to Bible stories and not vice versa.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22399806747646984732011-10-12T10:54:13.757-04:002011-10-12T10:54:13.757-04:00Denny,
All of our genes come from common ancestor...Denny,<br /><br />All of our genes come from common ancestors. That is clearly true at a local level - you and your siblings got all of your genes from your mum and dad. Then, you and your cousins got all your genes from your shared grandparents. You and your first cousins ... etc. Now, all that Common Descent means is that this tree can be extrapolated outwards indefinitely - but as you go outwards, the same individuals start popping up as ancestors at more and more nodes. Fewer and fewer people left modern descendants, the further back you go. If we pause for a breather at the 'species boundary', the set of all humans, it is clear that we all share genetic relationship - any two individuals are nth cousins, z times removed. We can see this in patterns in the genes. So if we have a common idea of what is 'good', and what is 'evil', that shared genetic heritage is an excellent candidate for the location of that 'standard'. It does not have to be external to exist. One evolutionary explanation would be that the genes underlying these tendencies prospered at the expense of other, more self-oriented genes, because humans with a better idea of how to interact left more offspring than those without. This innate sense formed a basis for legislative, and religious, formalisations. <br /><br />Now, to move outside the species boundary, to the supposed specialness of <i>Homo sapiens</i>, you made a slightly disingenuous switch to the lack of a <i>fossil</i> path from hominids to humans. As I said right at the beginning, fossils are a patchy source of info. But again in our genes, we can see the relationship with chimps and other apes, and with Neanderthals. We simply <i>do not</i> see a discontinuity between species that special-creation events would lead us to expect. The existence of the 'factual biological pathway' is betrayed by the modern individuals that have related genes, complete with tell-tale scars that must surely be inherited by descent. We are apes - remarkable ones, but apes. Acceptance of this incontrovertible fact does not automatically trigger 'ape-like' behaviour!Allan Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58987829679131465772011-10-12T06:49:55.809-04:002011-10-12T06:49:55.809-04:00Jud said, “… careful scientific studies have shown...Jud said, “… careful scientific studies have shown moral feelings or tendencies in children so very young that complex moral philosophy at a cognitive level is almost certainly not what is going on.” - Well, first of all, I think words have meaning, and the meaning of words like “feeling” and “mind” are distinct from one another. Second, I hearken back to something about which you and I are likely to disagree. Evolutionists factually attribute the development of human characteristics (mind and emotion) to common descent, even though there is no biological (fossil) pathway from hominids to humans (or even between most hominids). Every public venue (e.g. National Geographic and Scientific American) article I have seen that trumpets a link between hominids and humans has later been shown to lack a factual biological pathway. One of the most recent was ‘Lucy’ who has fallen out of the chimp/human chain. Therefore, human moral characteristics show up in much more recent history (100,000 years or less), which is consistent with the Bible’s proposition that humans (with their unique characteristics) appeared suddenly.<br /><br />Jud said, “Why ever would you think that humans having inborn, or at least very early, moral development would make everyone's behavior uniformly good?” – Clearly everyone’s behavior is not uniformly good. But, why? What’s puzzling to me is that you use the word “good” (a qualitative ‘non-material’ characterization that can only apply if there is some uniform or pseudo-uniform standard to which something is ‘judged’). Morals (felt or thought) only apply if there is a specific agreed upon (non-material) standard. Naturalists/materialists are all about ‘survival of the fittest.’ Why a need for or evolutionary introduction of ‘morals,’ which implies a non-material subjective standard. Again, morals imply a Biblical perspective, not an evolutionary one. <br /><br />Jud said, “I'd venture to say the 'problem of evil,' since this is what we're talking about, is far thornier for believers.” – Does your statement mean that non-believers (atheists) don’t wrestle with the concept of evil? Is evil real to you? If so, how do you explain it, since (‘naturally’-speaking) we’re all simply going to eventually exist only as a few star-originated scattered molecules?Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21095057611522853522011-10-11T09:25:53.821-04:002011-10-11T09:25:53.821-04:00Denny writes:
Why do you use the word “feelings” ...Denny writes:<br /><br /><i>Why do you use the word “feelings” (an emotional expression)? You will note that Jeremiah writes “minds” and “hearts” – the human cognitive ability that houses conscience.</i><br /><br />I don't at all think Jeremiah's "hearts" and my "feelings" are mutually exclusive. <br /><br />I did not talk about cognitive ability because I wanted to make the point that careful scientific studies have shown moral feelings or tendencies in children so very young that complex moral philosophy at a cognitive level is almost certainly not what is going on. The moral feelings come first, very early in childhood development, and later we attain the ability to impose various cognitive overlays on these feelings, or instincts, or tendencies, or developing consciences, or whatever one wishes to call them.<br /><br /><i>Why did Christians slaughter innocent people in the Crusades, as well as the atrocities of Joe Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. (atheists), and countless others? What were the inborn moral feelings they had?</i><br /><br />Why ever would you think that humans having inborn, or at least very early, moral development would make everyone's behavior uniformly good? That is something like saying, "Since nearly everyone is able to run by age 2 or 3, how do you explain why Usain Bolt runs so much faster than everyone else we know of, and why some other people cannot run at all?" Or like saying, "Since nearly everyone shows some primitive math ability in early childhood, why aren't we all Einsteins?" People differ. Big shock. Film at 11.<br /><br />I'd venture to say the 'problem of evil,' since this is what we're talking about, is far thornier for believers, as is evident from believers and former believers having wrestled with it, often in public and in writing, for millenia.Judnoreply@blogger.com