I don’t think he meant cognitive ability. I think he’s talking about things that now we know and we couldn’t possibly know two thousand years ago. Obviously, pi is not a good example, but there’s other things.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
borrek wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
My favourite highly accurate parts of the Bible are where Pi is 3, and insects have 4 legs. Yeah, that stood the test of time!
Oh, dear Jab1, haven’t you got it yet? Things in the bible change meanings silly boy. That’s what these nice gentlemen have been trying to teach us for pages here. It’s about time you understand. Just because the bible uses a certain very specific word, that isn’t necessarily what it means. See, things meant different things when it was written. It’s all about the context. Here, I’ll explain. You think that pi = 3.14159265… but that is what it means now, in modern age. Back in the day, circles worked differently and pi was only 3. Sorry I can’t explain how is it that circles were different, I’m not a geometry teacher. But at least now you know that the bible is never wrong!
I have a very inquisitive 4 year old daughter, and I simplify many many things which I will have to go back and correct once she has a more sophisticated intellect.
Can’t it be said that humans as a whole are more sophisticated now as opposed to thousands of years ago? Perhaps we’ve grown into an understanding of the universe and God that is different from what was given to us when we had a limited capacity to grasp the full meaning.
That’s an interesting point, but I do think it’s wrong. Primarily because there’s no evidence to suggest a decreased cognitive ability in humans from that long time of the Bible (as far as I am aware).
In fact, the ancient Greeks had a better understand of Pi than the Bible does, they managed to calculate the circumference of the earth after all! All this before Jesus came about. So while I agree that we are more sophisticated now, this is due to cultural and scientific, not biological, advancements. [/quote]
I wasn’t talking about biological advancements. I was talking about cultural and scientific advancements.
One thing to remember is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people were not academia. To say Greeks knew pi is a little misleading. I’d generously say that the literacy rate was maybe 5% at most, and the mathematical literacy much much lower.
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
Trying to get to the “real meaning” of it is stupid, as there is no “real” meaning.
There is to religious people. That’s surely the point of a religious text.
TO religious people. See the condition in your sentence?[/quote]
Yes, I was there when I typed it. The Bible was written by people with a particular worldview to promulgate that worldview and was further edited by the church over hundreds of years to indoctrinate a way of behaving. It was never a mere collection of stories to the writers, or the preachers. It had a meaning to all of them that they wanted the rest of the world to “get”.
All of which attribute sacred meaning to their religious texts.
Oo. An ad hominem attack. Always the sign of a master debater.
I indicated I hadn’t read them all, yes. I started around the point you were expressing your glee at writing bible instead of Bible. Since I was commenting on your flat Earth post in isolation, I didn’t actually need to have read the entire thread.
That’s such well-established practice it almost goes without saying.
No, you’re seeing what you’re projecting on me. I wasn’t making a judgement on what those statements actually meant (or trying to give them what I believed to be the true context) just pointing out that as far-from-definitive statements they were weak support for your (challenged) assertion, be it true or otherwise. I was being even-handed; you were apparently assuming I had a side to defend.
Well you were lumping me in with those who see it as more than a guideline, which would be people who believe it has some higher truth that we all should be following i.e. advocates.
I thought you’d go for the panties in a bunch or toys out of the pram analogy. It goes along with your dismissive reflex responses to what you think I’m saying, rather than what I’m actually saying. The fact that you can cherry pick from the Bible to support either side of an argument isn’t a revelation (pun possibly intended). It’s a very simple concept that I doubt has gone over many people’s head.
It’s been an interesting little experience, this. Since I’m on the biology side of the issue I actually agree with everything you were posting. I once spent an hour and half making a Jehovah’s witness (who’d knocked on my door) listen to some uncomfortable truths with regard to his beliefs about science and nature, so I have no axe to grind with you regarding biblical accuracy.
However, having seen how quickly Push succumbed to your pretty avatar I thought it might be interesting to not just agree with you, and equally not take his side, but simply and unemotionally point out your proposition was weakly supported by the evidence you supplied. A shame you responded in such a snarky and condescending way. You clearly have taste and intelligence, but your presumptive attitude is disappointing.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
That’s such well-established practice it almost goes without saying. [/quote]
So why on earth were you trying to say otherwise?
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
*by you I mean anyone that tries to take the bible as more than an interesting fiction book, or a “guideline”.
Because I disagreed with you I must be a Bible advocate - is that the thought process? And to think you were chastising Push for assuming you were a college boy.
No, that is not the thought process, and I honestly don’t see how you got to the word advocate.
Well you were lumping me in with those who see it as more than a guideline, which would be people who believe it has some higher truth that we all should be following i.e. advocates. [/quote]
No, I wasn’t lumping you in, and I tried to make it clear when I said “by you I mean…” I wasn’t using the word you to address the person I answered to, I used it refering to anyone who, like I said, sees the Bible as more than a “guideline”. Maybe you fit in that group, maybe you didn’t. I didn’t lump you in, you did it yourself. And I still don’t see how believing in something necessarily means advocating.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
I thought you’d go for the panties in a bunch or toys out of the pram analogy. It goes along with your dismissive reflex responses to what you think I’m saying, rather than what I’m actually saying. The fact that you can cherry pick from the Bible to support either side of an argument isn’t a revelation (pun possibly intended). It’s a very simple concept that I doubt has gone over many people’s head. [/quote]
Which is exactly what you did, now you tell me you did it consciously, but got your panties in a bunch regardless, at least from my view of your previous post. And the argument might not be a revelation to you, but trust me, a lot of people don’t agree with this.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
It’s been an interesting little experience, this. Since I’m on the biology side of the issue I actually agree with everything you were posting. I once spent an hour and half making a Jehovah’s witness (who’d knocked on my door) listen to some uncomfortable truths with regard to his beliefs about science and nature, so I have no axe to grind with you regarding biblical accuracy.
However, having seen how quickly Push succumbed to your pretty avatar I thought it might be interesting to not just agree with you, and equally not take his side, but simply and unemotionally point out your proposition was weakly supported by the evidence you supplied. A shame you responded in such a snarky and condescending way. You clearly have taste and intelligence, but your presumptive attitude is disappointing.
[/quote]
Thanks for answering my question. You WERE indeed playing dumb. Now I see you’re not. But if someone leads me to believe they’re not even trying to understand what I said before answering, condescending is the best I can do. Sorry I’m cute, not perfect. And presumptuous? I’m impressed you were the first one here to notice. Or the first one to say it? Hmm…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Watch for an upcoming thread about an arm-wrestling match in a Kansas City Starbucks between me and a pretty girl. Since her forearms are probably shorter than mine which would give me a distinct advantage I hereby will allow her to place her elbow on a copy of “on the origin of species”.
(Notice how I very subtly did not capitalize that thar bunch of proper nouns…I hope she’s burnin’ mad)[/quote]
Of course, forearm length is my only disadvantage. 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Watch for an upcoming thread about an arm-wrestling match in a Kansas City Starbucks between me and a pretty girl. Since her forearms are probably shorter than mine which would give me a distinct advantage I hereby will allow her to place her elbow on a copy of “on the origin of species”.
(Notice how I very subtly did not capitalize that thar bunch of proper nouns…I hope she’s burnin’ mad)
Of course, forearm length is my only disadvantage.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…I could go a lot of places with this one…[/quote]
Oh?
[quote]borrek wrote:
I wasn’t talking about biological advancements. I was talking about cultural and scientific advancements.
One thing to remember is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people were not academia. To say Greeks knew pi is a little misleading. I’d generously say that the literacy rate was maybe 5% at most, and the mathematical literacy much much lower. [/quote]
OK, sure, I agree with all that obviously. But my point still then holds that (at least some of) these people could have comprehended the true rendering of Pi, or the actual amount of legs an insect has. I’m sure, for example, that if two thousand years ago some god had told people about germ theory, we would all be pretty fucking healthy by now (or would have gone extinct to some ubersuperbug).
Essentially what I’m saying is, the literacy rate was low because of cultural factors. Had they been taught effectively, they would have been more sophisticated.
this is an essay i wrote on the topic of intelligent design vs evolution. similar debate.
For the past decade a debate has been taking place over which idea better supports the origin of life. Is it the Theory of Evolution first proposed by Charles Darwin, or the idea of Intelligent Design? While the Theory of Evolution has been tested, and supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, the idea of intelligent design has little scientific evidence to support it.
The first side of the argument I will address is Intelligent Design. Intelligent design is belief that there are features of the universe that are best explained by a designer, such as a god, and not by an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent Design first came about in 1987, after the court ruling in the case Edwards vs. Aguillard, which stated that teaching â??creation scienceâ?? along side of evolution, would be in violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion.
The largest problem that comes about with Intelligent design is that there is no way of testing it. The competing theory of Intelligent design, evolution, does not directly test Intelligent design. Therefore, Intelligent design must construct a theory that makes its own predictions which can then be tested, which Intelligent design does not do. Many would argue that Intelligent design has done this with â??irreducible complexityâ?? such as the flagella motor, which they argue is to complex and perfect a system to have come about through natural selection. However, â??irreducible complexityâ?? is not testable and simply provides a change of subject.
Michael Behe, a proponent of Intelligent design believed that the vertebrate eye, along with several other biological functions, are irreducibly complex. Michael Behe tried to show that this is the downfall of the theory of evolution because there is no selection pressure for the intermediate steps in the construction of an irreducibly complex function. However, Michael Behe completely neglects the possibility that the eye, and other irreducibly complex systems evolved in steps in which the function of the system changed. â??Irreducible complexityâ?? was disproven, and the evolution of complex systems in which the function of the system changed over time was demonstrated in (Lenski et al. 140) where it was demonstrated that â??parts of an organism can trade off functions, even losing them for a time, while evolving more complex and useful onesâ??.
Another argument of Intelligent design that can be disproven is that of the â??fine tuned universeâ?? Proponents of Intelligent design argue that if the big bang didnâ??t occur exactly how it did, with the strong nuclear force being as little as 2% stronger or 5% weaker, then life as we know it would not exist, so an intelligent designer must have had a hand in the big bang. However since we are here we must live in a universe fine-tuned to our existence regardless of whether or not that universe was created by an intelligent designer or if it occurred due to random happenings. Since our existence is in this universe is true this can support neither a fine tuned universe nor a random universe.
The second side to this debate is the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species in 1859. Darwinâ??s theory of Evolution was the final product of years of observations he had made in the field. Darwin noted that every species is fertile enough to have population growth if all offspring survived to reproduce, however populations stay roughly the same size over time. Charles also noted that food, although limited, stays relatively stable over time. This results in a struggle for survival within the species, which are competing for food and other natural resources. Darwin realized that in sexually reproducing species, all offspring have variations, some of which lead to an advantage in survival in a given environment. The species with the variations that provide an advantage are more likely to reproduce and pass on these variations, overtime resulting in new varieties of species and ultimately, new species. Darwin saw this information as evidence of â??decent with modificationâ??. Decent with Modification according to Darwin explains how different species can be descendants of a common ancestor due to accidental modifications within the genes of the species. The most commonly used example of descent with modification is Darwinâ??s finches.
The finches known as Darwinâ??s finches are located on the Galapagos Islands and are derived from a small flock of grassquits that invaded the islands from either Central or South America, approximately two million years ago. The finches on Galapagos Islands are comprised of thirteen species, and a fourteenth species that lives on the nearby island of Cocos. The largest split in the evolution of finches separates two lineages of Warbler finch. These two birds however, still recognize each other as potential mates and are classified as belonging to a single species even though they have two different names. (Grant, 1997) The largest variation that comes with the finches that occupy the Galapagos Islands is the beaks size of that various finches. Since the beak size is related to the diet of the bird, the large variations in sizes show the variety of foods that the birds have adapted to eating.
The medium ground finches on the island Daphne Major, were used to test descent with modification by Grant and colleagues in 1977. By 1980 Grant and colleagues were able to tag nearly one hundred percent of the medium ground finches on Daphne Major. The birds tagged were primarily seed eaters which correlated to their beak size. Beak size was shown by Grant and colleagues to be correlated with the size of the seeds harvested by the finches. In Darwinâ??s book On the Origin of Species he wrote
â??The most striking and important fact for us in regard to the inhabitants of islands, is their affinity to those of the nearest mainland, without being actually the same species. [In] the Galapagos Archipelago... almost every product of the land and water bears the unmistakable stamp of the American continent. There are twenty-six land birds, and twenty-five of these are ranked by Mr. Gould as distinct species, supposed to have been created here; yet the close affinity of most of these birds to American species in every character, in their habits, gestures, and tones of voice, was manifestâ??
Darwin felt that the finches found on the Galapagos Islands were a perfect example of the evolution of species to adapt to their surroundings.
There is a great deal of evidence that supports the Theory of Biological Evolution. There are two main categories where this evidence comes from. There is evidence from living species and evidence from fossil records.
The first piece of evidence seen in living organisms is microevolution. Microevolution is the â??change in gene frequencies and trait distributions that occur within populations and speciesâ??. (Freeman, 2007) Evolution on this scale can be easily observed over short periods of time such as from parent to offspring. These changes in gene frequencies can come due to mutations, immigration or genetic drift. An example of microevolution would be House sparrows in North America. House sparrows are not native it North America, and were first introduced in 1852. (Lowther, 2004) Since that time, due to microevolution, the size of the House Sparrow has changed. Sparrows found in the North have larger bodies then those that are found in the south. (Berkley, 2006) This is believed to be because larger bodied birds can survive lower temperatures. The lower temperatures found in the north would naturally select for larger bodied birds. The different sized House Sparrows show how populations that descended from a common ancestor can have different gene frequencies.
A second piece of evidence that supports the Theory of Biological Evolution is macroevolution. Macroevolution is the large evolutionary change, usually seen in morphology in different populations that would require them to be placed in different taxa. Macroevolution occurs at or above the levels of species, which results in the creation of two distinct and separate species. An example of Macroevolution would be the evolution of Eukaryotes. This is stated in the Endosymbiosis theory which states that Mitochondria evolved from aerobic bacteria living inside a host cell. (Marrs, 2004) The mitochondria which were originally separate prokaryotic organisms were taken into the host cell as endosymbionts where it would later become an organelle of the cell. Mitochondria contain DNA that is different than the DNA found in the nucleus of that same cell. The DNA of the mitochondria is also round, such as that of Bacteria. Mitochondria also have relatively small genomes compared to that of bacteria, which represents the mitochondria evolving to become more and more dependent on the host cell. (Marrs, 2004)
Another piece of evidence that supports the Theory of Biological Evolution is vestigial organs. Vestigial organs or structures are homologous structures that have lost their original function in a species due to evolution. Many vestigial structures can be seen in an organismâ??s embryonic state; however most of these are lost before birth. There are many examples of vestigial organs or structures in species. Some of these examples include the pelvic bone of whales, the tailbone or coccyx of humans, wings on flightless birds such as the kiwi and ostrich, and hind limbs of snakes. (Freeman, 2007) Although the appendix is now believed to be part of the immune system, it is considered a vestigial organ since it is disadvantageous due to is high chance of infection, and because of its relative lack of function compared to homologous structures in other organisms. (Sullen, 2005)
The next piece of evidence that supports the Theory of Biological Evolution comes from fossil records. The presence of fossils from extinct organisms, different from those found today supports the theory of Biological evolution by showing the change in organisms found on Earth through time. Extinction of organisms suggests that organisms are constantly changing to survive the present set of conditions they live in. Examples of extinct fossils that have been discovered include the Tasmanian wolf, the Dodo, and Stellarâ??s Seacow. (Kissler 2007) Extinct species can be seen as the relatives of living species.
More evidence supporting the Theory of Biological Evolution is the Law of Succession. The law of succession states that fossil types are succeeded in the same geographic region by fossils similar to those previous fossils or are similar to still living species in the area. An example of this would be fossils found of mid-Atlantic clams whose shells gradually get closer and closer to taking on the form of the clams currently found in the Atlantic today. (Windgard 1999) The next piece of evidence that supports the Theory of Biological Evolution goes along with the Law of Succession and is now as a Transitional form. Transitional forms are fossilized organisms that represent intermediary forms of organisms which show a transition in the form of the species. These transitional forms represent descent with modification. Transitional forms are often referred to as the â??missing Linkâ??. An example of a transitional form can be seen in the Tiktaalik. The Tiktaalik is a genus of extinct sarcopterygian from the late Devonian period. (Monoyios 2008) The Tikaalik is an example of how sarcopterygian fish developed adaptation to deal with the oxygen poor waters that they lived in. Some of these adaptations include a basic wrist bone, fingers, and primitive lungs as well as gills.
After reviewing the overwhelming amount of evidence for the theory of evolution, along with the general lack of any scientific facts to support intelligent design, it is clear that the theory of evolution is the greater explanation for how life came to be in the current state that we see it in.
just a tip, if you add some line breaks in there, it will be much more readable.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Had they been taught effectively, they would have been more sophisticated.[/quote]
You’re probably right, but I do think it can be argued that the Bible provided an education that was certainly effective in expanding more than just man’s knowledge. The Bible is more than simply a book, and I believe a lot of it is laid out in a way that is authoritative but easy to swallow.
If we go back to the metaphor of teaching my daughter, I know that I could push her, and she could absorb knowledge from me that would put her lightyears ahead of her peers academically, but I have to nurture other equally important sides of her development - like social development. That requires taking into account lessons that she will intuit with a 4-year old intellect.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
borrek wrote:
just a tip, if you add some line breaks in there, it will be much more readable.
I was actually going to read it but opted not to precisely for that reason.[/quote]
added some line breaks. Does that help at all?