# Thread: Intuitive Bible processing

1. Originally Posted by INTJ123
Now if evolution is a fact then you should be able to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true. Unless you think I'm being unreasonable.
Here is my reasoning:

If you are going to create a forced binary, it's a lot more accurate to say it's a fact than to say it is not. IOW, you will actually be far more misleading and dishonest to say it is NOT a fact than to say that it is.

So no, I'm not going to manipulated into playing your game beyond what I've already allowed. This part of the discussion has been manufactured by you. If you don't like my answer, then don't force a binary. You're actually allowed to see evolution as the most viable alternative (by far) without thinking it is perfect and unflawed.

This is ridiculous though, theory and a fact? are you serious?
Yes. See above. The problem is with your forced binary AND with your implied insistence that if something is not 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (which, of course, nothing can be), then it is equivalent in probability to all other ideas that one might present without testing. It's like playing Powerball with one ticket while someone else has bought 50 million tickets and saying you both have equal odds to win because, after all, "no one knows what will happen."

At the moment, there is no other viable alternative to evolution, scientifically, and it is constantly being refined by experimentation and data. So it best describes the data we have, just as Newtonian physics best described the data at the time... and was never really "wrong," it just could not explain all potential situations that might arise and it could not explain WHY things worked as they did.

And no, I'm not required to engage you in a detailed discussion of evolution, I have a life outside this forum. I've found enough to satisfy my own curiosity on the topic and have no vested interest in winning you over to believe in evolution -- why should I care? My complaints in this thread have pretty clearly been about the lack of rigor in your logical process, as I have noted above for the third or fourth time above; that has been my concern. You muddy the definition of what a scientific theory is and suggest that points of view unsupported by the same copious quantity of data are equivalent.

If you want to understand why I hold this view on evolution, go read books by people who work in the field daily -- I doubt I could present a case to a level that would convince you of anything. There's a plethora of books out there explaining how science views evolution, the positives and the flaws, the areas of uncertainty, and the like, and what "other options" there are and to what degree those hypotheses are probable.

2. Originally Posted by INTJ123
Furthermore, I have heard of mummies in Egypt having impacted wisdom teeth. This fact, added with the fact that many people to this very moment don't need to pull their wisdom teeth, totally puts a big hole in your assertion that our jaws have evolved to accomodate space for our larger brains and lingual skills. And I'm supposed to accept this as fact?
Evolution doesn't have teleology. It's a set of genetic variations that are selected for by aiding reproduction, selected against by precluding reproduction, or allowed to persist because it doesn't affect reproduction one way or another - that's why we still have vestige organs like the remnant of the nictitating membrane in the corner of our eyes.

Humans have shorter jaws than most other animals - that's obvious. By examining various hominid skulls, we have noticed a correlation between jaw size and cranial capacity, and mechanics of speaking. For most people, that results in impacted wisdom teeth. For others, due to genetic variation in tooth size among other things, there is no resulting impaction. All of these are consistent with the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology.

There's no hole at all - you're just failing to see the bigger picture.

3. Originally Posted by Hoffman
The first clarification I'd like to make here is that while a strictly metaphysical view of God is indeed unfalsifiable, a Biblical perspective is most certainly falsifiable. That is, through literal interpretation, the metaphysical account given in Genesis states that the world was created around 6,000 years ago, and furthermore there was a flood around 4,200 years ago. If one can prove that the universe has been around for longer than that (many of our scientific interpretations suggest so), then you've essentially falsified the Biblical account. However, if one choose not to take the Genesis account literally, then we've opened up a can of worms regarding Biblical interpretation... let's not go there.
We have. No one says that Genesis must be literal. Most scholarship has interpreted it as allegorical from the beginning. Even when hard evidence is presented that the universe is much older than YEC asserts, the response will usually be to reject the data.

Currently, I suspend belief in evolution theory, as it seems to lack sufficient evidence to support its core belief.
There is no belief. There is a theory, and there are mountains of data to support it. That it has essentially remained unchanged since Darwin and Mendel were combined in the early 20th Century speaks well to its sticking power.

We have no way of proving so much as the possibility of living material arising out of inorganic matter. To the extent of my awareness, the best laboratory tests with regards have brought to life... a few amino acids. This comes nowhere close to giving credence to an evolutionary origin of life. You'd need a couple dozen more of the correct amino acids to have the necessary ingredients for protein synthesis within a unicellular organism. Still, this gives no explanation for how the unicellular organism itself emerged.
Evolution and abiogenesis are two different concepts, and it's disingenuous to conflate them. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that a first cause created the universe, and then evolution happened because of the rules the universe was created by.

Consider the extraordinary amount of hurdles that follow after this. How does one explain the emergence of the genetic code? The transition from invertibrate to vertibrate? The transition from asexual to sexual reproduction? For that matter, aren't we already making key assumptions to support this idea? A simple example is in regards to the sun- it would've had to stay in a very similar state for millions and millions of years in order to maintain a hospitable environment for the evolution of life on Earth.
Once again, biogenesis and evolution are two different fields.

All of these subsequent things are easily explained through natural selection and genetic variation. Nervous ganglia in an invertibrate could have one or a thousand genetic variations that caused them to fuse into a notochord. Then further variations could have caused this notochord to calcify, and form a spinal column. From this point, variation can run wild, as there is a solid structure. One million years is a long time.

The sun has stayed in a very similar state over the last 2.5 billion years, slightly dimming over that time - we know this because the mathematics involved with astronomy tells us this to be the case. Likewise, that's a big assumption that life requires a similar environment to the current one to exist. Extremophile bacteria persist and thrive in high temperature and high acid environments. The only thing life generally can't tolerate is high ionizing radiation - and water does a good job of creating a barrier around that.

The point should already be clear to any rational thinking individual, the point I think INTJ123 has been trying to make. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution theory, but understand that it is simply that- a belief, a faith based assumption, which in this characteristic is no different from religion. The theory is unsubstantiated, plain and simple. I do think we should continue to explore the possibility of the theory; stay true to the scientific method. However, we should not be indoctrinating children (a state of mind all too influential) toward this belief system, as it is not factual. Furthermore, through logical implication, it destroys the faith of many individuals- this, mind you, is what tends to frustrate the creationists most.
No. It's a scientific fact. It supports all the evidence, and has for over 150 years. The question since Darwin has never been whether there is evolution through natural selection, because it's that apparent. The question has been the mechanics of this evolution, which we now know to be genetic variation.

All of modern biology is built on this data. Modern biology is also incredibly good at making predictions based on this - once again, see the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This was predicted just a few years after penicillin was discovered, and did not surprise the scientific world as many would have you believe.

Somebody, please show me some evidence that supports evolution theory. Fossil record? Alright then, but first let's discuss radiometric dating, and its inherent assumptions that potentially disavow the entire process. Mutations and genetic drift? Evidence for variation within a species, not speciation. I'm serious, show me some evidence. Granted, I'm not an expert. However, I have been spending copious amounts of time discerning the argument from both sides, and after careful consideration, I remain unconvinced. I simply wish to know the truth.
Radiometric dating? Mountains of research affirming its effectiveness. The math works, too. The only real "evidence" that could disavow it is the idea that "God created it that way" - a non-scientific hypothesis. Oh, and we also measure the decay rate in recently deceased organisms, too, just to calibrate the numbers.

Mutations and genetic drift? Once again, the very famous case of moths in England, whereby the black variation would thrive in a polluted environment with soot-covered trees while the white variation would be dominant in the cleaner areas with white-barked trees. Oh, there's also the thing about my being lactose tolerant, which arose in only two places in the world - Northern Europe and West Africa. Every other population stops producing lactase after weaning. Variation within a species? Last time I checked, humanity was able to reproduce among itself, regardless of ethnicity, each of which has traits specific to it (skin color, average height, temperature tolerance, etc). There's lots of variation within homo sapiens sapiens.

What's interesting is that, hypothetically and momentarily, imagine the Biblical account of the flood to be true- an account, for the record, which has dozens of similar occurrences through out multiple, unrelated cultures around the world (I'll site if necessary, though I'd really prefer not to due to laziness, please do your own research if you're curious). Now consider the supposed transitional fossils we find of twelve foot neanderthals. Under this interpretation, these were not neanderthals; they were humans from a pre-flood world. Under pre-flood atmospheric conditions, the air we were breathing would've been oxygen saturated and of higher pressure- conditions which have been scientifically proven to cause organisms to grow much larger than they would otherwise.
There is nothing within that statement that fits the evidence that we have. Until you provide substantial evidence for a global deluge (extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence), this hypothesis completely collapses on itself.

But of course, it's not scientific to use a creationist explanation to interpret evidence, as the creationist relies on the metaphysical, which is inherently unscientific due to its unfalsifiability.
And that's a bad thing? Like I said, put up the evidence, then we'll talk. Until then, it's not worth consideration.

If I may momentarily muse: the first law of thermodynamics shows that matter is neither created nor destroyed, simply changed- this implies that, assuming a closed system (which allows for these laws to hold true), there must have been an external source that created our universe. Additionally, the second law, regarding entropy (yes I'm understating, but the implications hold true), would imply that even if there was an oscillatory process of big bang >> big crunch >> big bang, the closed system would not be able to continue this process infinitely due to dispersal of energy. This means there was also a beginning to the universe. Whether you want to use multiverse, intelligent designer, or any other theory to explain this is your decision.
No, it doesn't. It means that these are the rules of the universe as it currently exists. Just as we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang (or if there is such a thing as before), unless some spectacular evidence arises to explain this, or some powerful equation describes the relationship, we cannot make any assumptions on where the universe came from. The null hypothesis is that matter and energy are eternal and uncreated, and until we have distinct evidence otherwise, that's the place to start from. Second law only states that by current energy transfer methods as we understand them, the tendency is for entropy to increase. It doesn't mean that something else completely different on a quantum scale starts happening when a system is fully entropic; it just means we don't know, and can't observe otherwise. It implies nothing about the start of the universe whatsoever - it just means that we don't know, beyond a heat death, what would happen when the universe reaches full entropy.

My issue is that the Big Bang is also written in textbooks made for children, and this is clearly metaphysical in nature. Given this hypocrisy, I don't see any reason why intelligent design should not also be allowed to be taught in schools, but that's just my opinion.
The Big Bang is science. We have evidence (intergalactic background radiation) that it happened, and its mathematical implications square away with all other known scientific knowledge. We're not just making it up.

Consider the implications on behavior with regards to evolution versus creationism (in this case, Christianity). Evolution suggests a state of moral relativism, with which the logical ad absurdum conclusion is that anybody can kill anybody with no lasting consequence- that is to say, if you were caught you may be punished by death, but even so. This might seem excessive, but I would argue that we've witnessed social darwinism in practice, Hitler is unfortunately a fine example. Christianity, on the other hand, suggests a constant state of judgment for your actions, as at the end of your life, you will be held accountable. It gives a more persuasive reason to act righteously outside of satiating personal ego in a morally relativistic world.
No, anthropology has made it abundantly clear that humans are social beings. Evolutionary theory has taken this and through the application of game theory and other mathematical constructs, made it very apparent that it's to humans' survival advantage to be social and altruistic - the real basis of religious morality. Selfish behavior is punished because we need our group surroundings and social cohesion - a single human doesn't last long in an unfriendly environment, as we have no claws nor fangs. Likewise, many seemingly contradictory traits (such as homosexuality) make a lot of sense in this context (you personally do not reproduce, but you help your brothers/sisters reproduce, and since they have half your genes, that helps self-perpetuation).

Err, I'm growing weary. Seriously, bring some evidence to the table that we can discuss. Let's see where this topic goes. Take care everyone!
The evidence exists. Are you willing to accept it?

4. Originally Posted by Hoffman
The first clarification I'd like to make here is that while a strictly metaphysical view of God is indeed unfalsifiable, a Biblical perspective is most certainly falsifiable. That is, through literal interpretation, the metaphysical account given in Genesis states that the world was created around 6,000 years ago, and furthermore there was a flood around 4,200 years ago. If one can prove that the universe has been around for longer than that (many of our scientific interpretations suggest so), then you've essentially falsified the Biblical account. However, if one choose not to take the Genesis account literally, then we've opened up a can of worms regarding Biblical interpretation... let's not go there.

Currently, I suspend belief in evolution theory, as it seems to lack sufficient evidence to support its core belief.

We have no way of proving so much as the possibility of living material arising out of inorganic matter. To the extent of my awareness, the best laboratory tests with regards have brought to life... a few amino acids. This comes nowhere close to giving credence to an evolutionary origin of life. You'd need a couple dozen more of the correct amino acids to have the necessary ingredients for protein synthesis within a unicellular organism. Still, this gives no explanation for how the unicellular organism itself emerged.

Consider the extraordinary amount of hurdles that follow after this. How does one explain the emergence of the genetic code? The transition from invertibrate to vertibrate? The transition from asexual to sexual reproduction? For that matter, aren't we already making key assumptions to support this idea? A simple example is in regards to the sun- it would've had to stay in a very similar state for millions and millions of years in order to maintain a hospitable environment for the evolution of life on Earth.

The point should already be clear to any rational thinking individual, the point I think INTJ123 has been trying to make. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution theory, but understand that it is simply that- a belief, a faith based assumption, which in this characteristic is no different from religion. The theory is unsubstantiated, plain and simple. I do think we should continue to explore the possibility of the theory; stay true to the scientific method. However, we should not be indoctrinating children (a state of mind all too influential) toward this belief system, as it is not factual. Furthermore, through logical implication, it destroys the faith of many individuals- this, mind you, is what tends to frustrate the creationists most.

Somebody, please show me some evidence that supports evolution theory. Fossil record? Alright then, but first let's discuss radiometric dating, and its inherent assumptions that potentially disavow the entire process. Mutations and genetic drift? Evidence for variation within a species, not speciation. I'm serious, show me some evidence. Granted, I'm not an expert. However, I have been spending copious amounts of time discerning the argument from both sides, and after careful consideration, I remain unconvinced. I simply wish to know the truth.

What's interesting is that, hypothetically and momentarily, imagine the Biblical account of the flood to be true- an account, for the record, which has dozens of similar occurrences through out multiple, unrelated cultures around the world (I'll site if necessary, though I'd really prefer not to due to laziness, please do your own research if you're curious). Now consider the supposed transitional fossils we find of twelve foot neanderthals. Under this interpretation, these were not neanderthals; they were humans from a pre-flood world. Under pre-flood atmospheric conditions, the air we were breathing would've been oxygen saturated and of higher pressure- conditions which have been scientifically proven to cause organisms to grow much larger than they would otherwise.

But of course, it's not scientific to use a creationist explanation to interpret evidence, as the creationist relies on the metaphysical, which is inherently unscientific due to its unfalsifiability.

If I may momentarily muse: the first law of thermodynamics shows that matter is neither created nor destroyed, simply changed- this implies that, assuming a closed system (which allows for these laws to hold true), there must have been an external source that created our universe. Additionally, the second law, regarding entropy (yes I'm understating, but the implications hold true), would imply that even if there was an oscillatory process of big bang >> big crunch >> big bang, the closed system would not be able to continue this process infinitely due to dispersal of energy. This means there was also a beginning to the universe. Whether you want to use multiverse, intelligent designer, or any other theory to explain this is your decision.

My issue is that the Big Bang is also written in textbooks made for children, and this is clearly metaphysical in nature. Given this hypocrisy, I don't see any reason why intelligent design should not also be allowed to be taught in schools, but that's just my opinion.

Consider the implications on behavior with regards to evolution versus creationism (in this case, Christianity). Evolution suggests a state of moral relativism, with which the logical ad absurdum conclusion is that anybody can kill anybody with no lasting consequence- that is to say, if you were caught you may be punished by death, but even so. This might seem excessive, but I would argue that we've witnessed social darwinism in practice, Hitler is unfortunately a fine example. Christianity, on the other hand, suggests a constant state of judgment for your actions, as at the end of your life, you will be held accountable. It gives a more persuasive reason to act righteously outside of satiating personal ego in a morally relativistic world.

Err, I'm growing weary. Seriously, bring some evidence to the table that we can discuss. Let's see where this topic goes. Take care everyone!
Thank you that clears alot of things up.

I agree, big bang is a big contradiction to science, the energy came from??? nowhere?

5. If humans were the result of intelligent design, then why the hell do we have inhaling tract located right next to ingestive tract? That's retarded. If humans were a product, the creator would get sued for producing defective merchandise.

6. Originally Posted by Edgar
If humans were the result of intelligent design, then why the hell do we have inhaling tract located right next to ingestive tract? That's retarded. If humans were a product, the creator would get sued for producing defective merchandise.
Good question? Only the designer could tell you that, if there is even a designer. I suppose everyone assumes I'm a die hard ID pusher, but no, I don't really care that much, I just acknowledge that the theory exists, just like the THEORY of evolution, it's not a fact...

7. Originally Posted by Edgar
If humans were the result of intelligent design, then why the hell do we have inhaling tract located right next to ingestive tract? That's retarded. If humans were a product, the creator would get sued for producing defective merchandise.
Good point. Same as the old civil engineering joke - "How do you know God's a civil engineer? Only a civil engineer would put a pleasure center right next to a waste channel"

8. Originally Posted by onemoretime
The Hallucinogen N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) Is an Endogenous Sigma-1 Receptor Regulator -- Fontanilla et al. 323 (5916): 934 -- Science

DMT is a metabolite of tryptophan, an amino acid, much as serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) is. It binds to the sigma-1 receptor.
This does not provide evidence supporting the claim that REM sleep and endogenous production of DMT is somehow linked, that DMT is produced while we sleep. My argument, as previously stated, is that science has yet to uncover the patterns of DMT production.. which invalidates the claim that DMT is produced during sleep cycles.

However, I will applaud your usage of scholarly journals. There is a serious lack of such a methodology in investigating the truth in this thread. I mean, I know random people lecturing in YouTube videos are educational and all..

9. Originally Posted by The Decline
This does not provide evidence supporting the claim that REM sleep and endogenous production of DMT is somehow linked, that DMT is produced while we sleep. My argument, as previously stated, is that science has yet to uncover the patterns of DMT production.. which invalidates the claim that DMT is produced during sleep cycles.

However, I will applaud your usage of scholarly journals. There is a serious lack of such a methodology in investigating the truth in this thread. I mean, I know random people lecturing in YouTube videos are educational and all..
Sigma-2 receptor is closely related to the kappa opioid receptor (even once leading to the assumption that sigma-2 was an opioid receptor), and both are highly correlated to dream activity, particularly through their regulation of the NMDA system. This would help to explain the partially dissociative nature of dreaming, as opposed to the purely psychedelic effects of substituted phenethylamines and synthetic tryptamines (not to mention the ergotamines).

10. Ive been gone for a day, I came back to check on this thread. Aparently hes not only kept this going without ever really giving a debate and hes gotten people into a RAGEEEEE about religion. Bravo INTJ123 your Te trolling skills arevery good. To all the people who continue to debate with him you should know that your not talking to a legitimate representation of his supposed point of view, your not going to learn anything, your not going to convince anyone of anything. Everything he says has been carfully crafted to pisss people off.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO