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

Poem said:
Here's Dragutin Savic (professor of Molecular Genetics at the Faculty of Sciences, University of Belgrade) using the terms 'neo-Darwinism' and 'theory of evolution'


Adaptive mutations: a challenge to Neo-Darwinism?
The directed mutation controversy has attracted a great deal of attention for an obvious reason. The hypothesis, particularly the conclusions drawn from early experiments is in sharp contrast to a basic tenet of neo-Darwinism which presumes that the factors governing mutational rate on one side, and direction of selection on the other, and independent. Do the data accumulated so far put in jeopardy the theory of evolution on which generations of biologist have been brought up? I think not, at least for the time being.
Click to expand...

As an aside, Savic's article is a bit outdated. Most of his reference are from the previous millennium. Here's some more recent evidence, (you might enjoy the first sentence of the Author's Summary).

journals.plos.org

Evidence for Retromutagenesis as a Mechanism for Adaptive Mutation in Escherichia coli

Author Summary The basic principle of neo-Darwinian genetics is that mutations occurring during growth enable the subsequent survival of the mutants under selective environmental conditions. However, new mutants can arise from a non-growing bacterial population during selection in an apparently...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
 
Poem said:
No, I was not relying on Savic's opinion - I just quoted him using those terms.

He used them. Get used to it.
Click to expand...
Why? Why is the validity of words used by Creationists soooo important? You've expended a very large amount of time defending your use of these terms, we've forgotten your original thesis: that scientists are divided about evolution. Let's get back to that, shall we?
 
This is just cosmology woo, reskinned as epistemology woo. Good science not being entirely sure about every detail of a theory means a gap large enough to admit any amount of nonsense. For some, it's tired light. For poem, it's... Well, it's whatever poem is trying to get to, if she can just chivvy us over this hump.
 
It's also interesting that a thread originally started to talk about difficulties in reconciling biblical accounts has pivoted to evolution.
 
Anyone who thinks that evolution is a 'random process' has missed out on a couple of hundred years of biology lessons.

Look up 'natural selection' and 'sexual selection' and then you may understand why you're wrong.
 
arthwollipot said:
Why? Why is the validity of words used by Creationists soooo important? You've expended a very large amount of time defending your use of these terms, we've forgotten your original thesis: that scientists are divided about evolution. Let's get back to that, shall we?
Click to expand...

You could try apologising for attacking the use of those terms. You really don't get to do that and then complain that someone's defending themselves, you're not Putin.

If you're struggling to remember the original thesis, which you obviously are, it was about Jesus' knowledge of the Second Coming. You don't get to gaslight those of us with better memories and reading comprehension than you. You're not...

waida minit...??
 
theprestige said:
This is just cosmology woo, reskinned as epistemology woo. Good science not being entirely sure about every detail of a theory means a gap large enough to admit any amount of nonsense. For some, it's tired light. For poem, it's... Well, it's whatever poem is trying to get to, if
she can just chivvy us over this hump.
Click to expand...
'He'.

Hey - you used the word 'theory'...........

I stated earlier that evolution is the safest bet - but pointing out the disagreements (and it became relevant on this thread to do so) isn't a crime.
 
Poem said:
'He'.

Hey - you used the word 'theory'...........

I stated earlier that evolution is the safest bet - but pointing out the disagreements (and it became relevant on this thread to do so) isn't a crime.
Click to expand...

There are disagreements within evolution: that doesn't mean there are disagreements with evolution. This is the old 'teach the controversy' crap again. The only disagreements or controversy with evolution come from religious fundamentalists.
Given that, why do you think this topic is relevant to this thread? No-one else here seems to have any problems with evolution- it's just you. If you are not, as you claim, a creationist, why are you going on about it?
 
Poem said:
'He'.
Click to expand...
Utterly irrelevant.
Poem said:
Hey - you used the word 'theory'...........
Click to expand...
Utterly irrelevant.
Poem said:
I stated earlier that evolution is the safest bet - but pointing out the disagreements (and it became relevant on this thread to do so) isn't a crime.
Click to expand...
But it is pointless, at least so far. Did you have a point you were trying to get to?
 
As far as free will. Most people feel that they have and use it. But most people also feel that they have and use common sense, and that their memory is pretty reliable, and that their ability to notice most of what they see is extremely reliable. So I must conclude that our percieved experience is perhaps not always a reliable thing. (It's just the most functional approximation we've been able to reach via natural processes such as evolution.)

As far as the language of creationists being picked up by scientists, if you circle all the examples with origins in debate with/argument against/outreach towards the segment of the public skeptical of evolution, I don't think you'll end up with many uncircled examples.

"Theory" being the exception, with a specific, correct, narrow meaning in scientific terms when used by scientists, and yet also peppered into apologetics as a term intended to suggest that being a theory is the same as being tenuous; poorly established; not well evidenced; an offhand guess, as in colloquial phrases like 'Well, my theory about that is...'
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Not to belabor this too much, but 'death' was also talked about like the permanent kind, while Jesus kinda talked about offering eternal.life as the alternative. So not tasting death might be taken as being invited to the kicking after-party, not just physically dying.
Click to expand...
All I can say is that I have never seen an apologists take that angle. Certainly worth bearing in mind.
 
sphenisc said:
I think it is taken (by Lewis) as an implication that Jesus is mistaken because he doesn't really know, as opposed to a deliberate lie by an omniscient godman.That might be regarded as some kind of mitigation; we're normally more forgiving of mistakes rather than acts of deception.
Click to expand...
I don't think the text supports Lewis's position. Jesus says that he is certain that 'this generation will not pass away'. His prophecy isn't about pinpointing a day - but a period of time that is within a generation. Affirming that nobody but the Father knows the actual day and hour just makes that explicit.
 
Darat said:
But it isn't - when you read the whole essay he clearly comes down on the side of "man can't know the mind of god".
Click to expand...
You do acknowledge that Lewis considered Jesus as divine and human?
 
Poem said:
I don't think the text supports Lewis's position. Jesus says that he is certain that 'this generation will not pass away'. His prophecy isn't about pinpointing a day - but a period of time that is within a generation. Affirming that nobody but the Father knows the actual day and hour just makes that explicit.
Click to expand...

Being certain doesn't contradict being wrong, so I don't see how that doesn't support Lewis's position. Jesus was mistaken and he was certain about it. Ten minutes reading this thread should convince you that's not an unusual situation for people to find themselves in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom