Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Pixel42]

If you are acknowledging that that means that scientists don't have an accepted understanding (the current one being modern synthesis or Neo-Darwinism) of evolution then you would be right.

But that isn't quite what is happening as far as I can see. Dawkins et al aren't yielding an inch.

I am saying that disagreements amongst scientists about unresolved details of a scientific theory cannot sensibly be compared to disagreements amongst religionists about interpretations of their holy book. That's like comparing disagreements amongst historians about the details of an historical event with disagreements amongst Star Wars fans about whether or not Han Solo shot first.

 

[Poem]

I am saying that disagreements amongst scientists about unresolved details of a scientific theory cannot sensibly be compared to disagreements amongst religionists about interpretations of their holy book. That's like comparing disagreements amongst historians about the details of an historical event with disagreements amongst Star Wars fans about whether or not Han Solo shot first.

I was responding to Darat who rightly made the point that there are different versions of Christianity depending on the denomination. I am merely pointing out that modern synthesis - though currently still standing as the accepted explanation for the mechanism of evolution - is not accepted by all biologists as adequate.

Whichever way you look at it that is a schism (and nobody need talk about creationism - I certainly wasn't).

 

[acbytesla]

I think you are being fastidious regarding terminology.

It has nothing to do with being fastidious. The term Darwinism is an invention of creationists in an attempt to dismiss the theory of evolution. Scientists do not use it. The theory of evolution is not dependent on Darwin. The theory of evolution was neither coined, invented or perfected by Darwin. Scientists are not trying to prove or disprove Darwin. Neither cosmologists or physicists are called Einsteinists. You sound like an ignorant moron using such a term.

Biologist are split over whether modern synthesis (or Neo-Darwinism) is a sufficient. explanation for the diversity of life. Whichever way you slice it, that looks awkward.

What the hell does "sufficient" mean in that sentence? Modern synthesis from my understanding is an idea on how to make sense of the difference between Mendel's work and Darwin. It matters not to me. Darwin got a lot wrong. He also got a lot right. But in the end, I don't give a damn. I am not a biologist or a mathematician. I don't worship Darwin or the theory of Evolution.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am saying that disagreements amongst scientists about unresolved details of a scientific theory cannot sensibly be compared to disagreements amongst religionists about interpretations of their holy book. That's like comparing disagreements amongst historians about the details of an historical event with disagreements amongst Star Wars fans about whether or not Han Solo shot first.

I don't think the latter is a fair comparison. The argument about whether Han Solo shot first is an argument about the authenticity of the reference material. We know from the original source material, Han shot first and that later versions are edited.

Now, there is a huge amount of scholarly effort that tries to do this type of analysis of the bible to recreate what the bible REALLY says. But theology is more like an argument about the mechanisms midichlorans use to control the universe.

 

[Poem]

The term Darwinism is an invention of creationists in an attempt to dismiss the theory of evolution.

Let's start with that...source?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

"We're not Jews any more, we're Christians". The Old Testament laws applied to Jews. Jesus fulfilled those laws. Christians have new laws. It's as simple as that. It's what Matthew 5:17-18 is all about.

"I haven't come to destroy the law, I've come to fulfil it." He fulfilled the law by dying on the cross and atoning for everyone's sins, and not one jot or tittle passed from the law until he died. After he died, all the jots and tittles could pass from the law, and most of them did, because they existed in order to bring about the Messiah.
After the Messiah had come and done his job by dying, they were no longer necessary.

...snip

Kind of a nitpick, but that's not the ultimate job of the messiah -- either in Christianity or Judaism. The thing that establishes a messiah, a Christ, is that they usher in the temporal rule of God on Earth. It's the reason Jesus needs a do-over, he didn't fulfill the Messianic imperative. Christians have faith he will eventually, but technically -- by definition -- he ain't no Messiah until he messiahs properly.

 

[acbytesla]

Let's start with that...source?

Turns out I'm probably wrong about that. Huxley appeared to have coined the term. But the term is not used today by scientists. The only people I hear using the term today are theists attempting to dismiss evolution as nothing, but some kind of cult. As opposed to being what it is, a cornerstone of modern biology.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'll ask again - do all biologists agree that modern synthesis adequately explains the diversity of life?

All serious biologists do, yes. That they don't is a creationist lie.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973

 

[arthwollipot]

Why would an omniscient God, foreknowing that Darwinian evolution would eventually become established, not make clear that the creation account was just a story? There are plenty of folk who walk away from the Bible because of Genesis 1-2.

Because the Bible was not written by an omniscient God, it was written by prescientific humans who didn't know that live evolves.

 

[acbytesla]

Why would an omniscient God, foreknowing that Darwinian evolution would eventually become established, not make clear that the creation account was just a story? There are plenty of folk who walk away from the Bible because of Genesis 1-2.

Because the Bible was not written by an omniscient God, it was written by prescientific humans who didn't know that live evolves.

Exactly!! Man created God. Not the other way around.

 

[Olmstead]

If you are acknowledging that that means that scientists don't have an accepted understanding (the current one being modern synthesis or Neo-Darwinism) of evolution then you would be right.

But that isn't quite what is happening as far as I can see. Dawkins et al aren't yielding an inch.

Evolution has been verified by experimentation and observation. New ideas and observations don't replace this theory, they supplement it, because the original observations remain valid and are repeatable.

 

[acbytesla]

If you are acknowledging that that means that scientists don't have an accepted understanding (the current one being modern synthesis or Neo-Darwinism) of evolution then you would be right.

But that isn't quite what is happening as far as I can see. Dawkins et al aren't yielding an inch.

Evolution has been verified by experimentation and observation. New ideas and observations don't replace this theory, they supplement it, because the original observations remain valid and are repeatable.

Yeah, I don't know what the hell Poem is talking about.

Evolution is one of the most demonstrably proven theories in Science. Darwin demonstrated and scientist after scientist, and study after study has confirmed evolution and natural selection. The Origin of the Species is magnificent in its observations. But Einstein was wrong about blending and he had no knowledge of genetics.

So clearly his ideas aren't the last word on evolution.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Poem, the game's up. Just admit it. You're a Christian. No-one will think any the worse of you. Just come clean. This ridiculous pretence isn't fooling anyone.

 

[Poem]

Poem, the game's up. Just admit it. You're a Christian. No-one will think any the worse of you. Just come clean. This ridiculous pretence isn't fooling anyone.

Not at all CY. Someone who thinks they are a Christian but won't profess it or give a reason for their hope isn't a true believer.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

 

[acbytesla]

Not at all CY. Someone who thinks they are a Christian but won't profess it or give a reason for their hope isn't a true believer.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 3:15-16&version=NIV

So? Those verses do not say anything.
Liars for Christ. There are more than enough Christians that believe that lying in service of the lord is acceptable.

 

[Poem]

All serious biologists do, yes. That they don't is a creationist lie.

Not according to these articles:

The Federalist: Why One-Third of Biologists Now Question Darwinism
The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution. Rather, they find problems with the explanatory value of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing, and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.

Nature Institute - Evolution: A Third Way

Nature: Does Evolutionary Theory Need A rethink

This website - The Third Way Of Evolution:
The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations.
It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else.

Google AI:
In 1980, Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould declared that the "Modern Synthesis" of neo-Darwinism was "effectively dead". Gould and others argued that natural selection alone couldn't explain the diversity of life, and that new processes were needed.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973

Indeed - and a theist to boot.

 

[Poem]

So? Those verses do not say anything.
Liars for Christ. There are more than enough Christians that believe that lying in service of the lord is acceptable.

Did you read the post that I was responding to?

 

[Poem]

Evolution has been verified by experimentation and observation. New ideas and observations don't replace this theory, they supplement it, because the original observations remain valid and are repeatable.

#476

The critics of the sufficiency of Neo-Darwinism I have cited all remain evolutionists.

 

[Poem]

Because the Bible was not written by an omniscient God, it was written by prescientific humans who didn't know that live evolves.

That would appear to be the case.

Would you also describe the NT in the same way you did the OT?

 

[Darat]

That would appear to be the case.

Would you also describe the NT in the same way you did the OT?

You are aware the bible for most Christian religions means the OT and NT?