• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

The evolution of the eyeWP is particularly interesting because each step of the way can be found in currently living creatures. From photo sensitive cells, to pigment spots, to cups, to pinholes, all the way to lenses and the rest. Earthworms have photosensitive skin. Clams have pinhole eyes. Velvet worms have simple lenses. Etc, etc.
 
Lithrael said:
I'm saying he's a bug guy and birds and mammals are not his expertise so if he's talking about them anyway it's probably to a general audience.
Click to expand...
According to AI:
Armin Moczek, an evolutionary biologist at Indiana University, is a leading researcher in the study of eye development and its evolution.

His work on ectopic eyes at Indiana University.
 
Poem said:
? Citation.
You've got the wrong war...but you'll wrong anyway.
Click to expand...
Ah yes my bad I was thinking of the thirty years war. Should have checked. Otherwise, wrong about what? That Christian groups have killed one another over religious schisms? Internicene conflicts etc?

No, not "Christians bad, scientists good," just comparing schisms. Also not that because plenty of Christians are scientists, either comfortably because they're not literalists or uncomfortably with some compartmentalization.
 
Lithrael said:
Ah yes my bad I was thinking of the thirty years war. Should have checked.
Click to expand...
No problem.
Lithrael said:
Otherwise, wrong about what? That Christian groups have killed one another over religious schisms? Internicene conflicts etc?
Click to expand...
True followers of Jesus are told to love one another and not make war...so no one participating in the Nazi genocide was following Christ.
Lithrael said:
No, not "Christians bad, scientists good," just comparing schisms. Also not that because plenty of Christians are scientists, either comfortably because they're not literalists or uncomfortably with some compartmentalization.
Click to expand...
Sounds fair.
 
Ah ok I think I see where we are actually at with this guy's point. He's talking about really being able to get down to the point where you know every molecular structure and every step, the point where you could model things in a computer simulation and get something close to or identical to what happens at the sub-cellular level. The point where you literally know everything about how it works (besides knowing why physics works the way it does).

The metaphor here would be, right now we know what engines are and we can make stirling engines no problem but we are still working on the knowledge and tools that will allow us to fully understand a napier deltic engine.
 
Lithrael said:
Ah ok I think I see where we are actually at with this guy's point. He's talking about really being able to get down to the point where you know every molecular structure and every step, the point where you could model things in a computer simulation and get something close to or identical to what happens at the sub-cellular level. The point where you literally know everything about how it works (besides knowing why physics works the way it does).

The metaphor here would be, right now we know what engines are and we can make stirling engines no problem but we are still working on the knowledge and tools that will allow us to fully understand a napier deltic engine.
Click to expand...
Could you cite which bit please?
 
As is Denis Noble (ie on the EES) - him being one of the founders of The Third Way of Evolution.
 
Poem said:
Could you cite which bit please?
Click to expand...
I'm just a hobbyist and that is just my impression. A grad student in the field would be a better person to ask, really.

You could look for work of his that says anything more revolutionary than 'evolution works like this, not like that,' that isn't an out of context soundbite, if you wanted.
 
Poem said:
True followers of Jesus are told to love one another and not make war...so no one participating in the Nazi genocide was following Christ.
Click to expand...
While I wasn't even talking about Nazis but rather about good old fashioned Catholic -> Lutheran -> Protestant schisms, I'm inclined to agree with you. Problem is, it seems like true followers of Jesus are pretty thin on the ground and have about as much influence as true prog rock fans.

How many True Christians are there? Enough to talk about? Not enough to stop their incorrectly faithful brethren from slaughtering one another wholesale once in a while.
 
Lithrael said:
While I wasn't even talking about Nazis but rather about good old fashioned Catholic -> Lutheran -> Protestant schisms, I'm inclined to agree with you. Problem is, it seems like true followers of Jesus are pretty thin on the ground and have about as much influence as true prog rock fans.
Click to expand...
Sure, pretty thin indeed.
Lithrael said:
How many True Christians are there? Enough to talk about? Not enough to stop their incorrectly faithful brethren from slaughtering one another wholesale once in a while.
Click to expand...
the narrow gate........
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Your latter post is at complete odds with 1881, which infers he has little if any expertise in eye evolution.

Eye evolution is really not a special mystery in evolution theory.

See #1,922
Click to expand...
I'm just citing what's on the net.

No one is saying that if Armin Moczek is right, that there won't be a comprehensive explanation in the future.
 
I think it would be uncontroversial to say that we know the broad strokes of how eyes evolve, that light sensitivity arises from very basic things and goes places etc, but not the exact lego-instructions-what-exactly-was-the-DNA-doing-at-each-step-and-why for every type of eye that now exists. And that stuff is interesting and useful! I'm excited that it's being studied.

The miscommunication here imo is that of a specialist finding the general explanations insufficient and describing them as not being able to do the job when he means they are not able to do the job at the level he is interested in. But this is a matter of where the cutting edge of stuff we are learning is, not a matter of the more general stuff being wrong. For instance, studying things at the population level shows us THAT and under what conditions things can evolve in novel ways, but not, chemically, exactly how, and limited by which conditions we are controlling, etc.

At this guy's level, even defining what a novel structure is is a debatable part of defining how a novel structure arises. For all I know it may be as useful and as useless as trying to define a fish.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
Christians. We've already done this.

If they don't have a satisfactory answer (they don't) then that is a problem irrespective of continued faith.

Why do you think there are so many non-Christians? Some will point to Matthew 24:34. I am.
Click to expand...
Poem said:
The thread is posted by Poem.
Click to expand...

What would satisfy you that it is a problem for Christians?

Conversely, what would satisfy you that it isn't?
 
Lithrael said:
I think it would be uncontroversial to say that we know the broad strokes of how eyes evolve, that light sensitivity arises from very basic things and goes places etc, but not the exact lego-instructions-what-exactly-was-the-DNA-doing-at-each-step-and-why for every type of eye that now exists. And that stuff is interesting and useful! I'm excited that it's being studied.

The miscommunication here imo is that of a specialist finding the general explanations insufficient and describing them as not being able to do the job when he means they are not able to do the job at the level he is interested in. But this is a matter of where the cutting edge of stuff we are learning is, not a matter of the more general stuff being wrong. For instance, studying things at the population level shows us THAT and under what conditions things can evolve in novel ways, but not, chemically, exactly how, and limited by which conditions we are controlling, etc.

At this guy's level, even defining what a novel structure is is a debatable part of defining how a novel structure arises. For all I know it may be as useful and as useless as trying to define a fish.
Click to expand...
The flawed eye argument is one that is used by creationists all the time. The human eye is neither irreducibly complex or was impossible to have evolved. Estimates have eyes evolving from basal organisms as many as 1500 times. That Poem can find a scientist that might not agree is hardly significant.
 
The first sentence of this might sound familiar to people who were brought up with Creationism. The rest, in my experience, never is.

Charles Darwin said:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
Click to expand...
 
arthwollipot said:
The first sentence of this might sound familiar to people who were brought up with Creationism. The rest, in my experience, never is.
Click to expand...
Yep.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Click to expand...
I've read them quote this countless times. And never ever do they finish what Darwin said.
 
Poem said:
You keep using the word 'probably'. Are you probably wrong?
Click to expand...
I'm potentially wrong, sure, but I say probably because I think it is probable.
Poem said:
Which 'company' please?
Click to expand...
That probably wasn't very clear: I meant the wing and the placenta were in the company of the eye, as things getting called unexplained even though they are explained well enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and general understanding (but probably not yet at the molecular level, which would indeed be useful and more complete information).
 
Poem said:
Mere assertion. And you have shown no signs of understanding the problems with it; a true sceptic wouldn't have an issue discussing them.
Click to expand...

Have we seen any evidence of these "problems" with evolution, and has Arthwollipot (or anyone else) "had an issue" with discussing them?
Poem: (If you're not still sulking): You claim to believe in evolution, yet you say here there are problems with it. How have you resolved these problems, so that you continue to accept evolution as a fact?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Have we seen any evidence of these "problems" with evolution, and has Arthwollipot (or anyone else) "had an issue" with discussing them?
Poem: (If you're not still sulking): You claim to believe in evolution, yet you say here there are problems with it. How have you resolved these problems, so that you continue to accept evolution as a fact?
Click to expand...
I have been pretty transparent in expressing my thoughts on evolution and the possible issues in recent posts.

The 'resolution' is recognising that evolution does have plenty of hard evidence; it does, imo, make logical sense as an explanation of life.

Returning to the OP, to whom is Jesus speaking to in verse 15 of Matthew 24? Is he speaking to his disciples who have asked him (v.3) what the sign of his coming will be and when the world will end? Or is it possible that he is speaking to a future generation?

Edited by Agatha: 
Trimmed for rule 4. The full text can be found in many places, including https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 24&version=KJV




15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige said:
What would satisfy you that it is a problem for Christians?

Conversely, what would satisfy you that it isn't?
Click to expand...
As already noted - they are split on this issue. Every apologetic I have looked at appears half-baked.

I'm not sure going over this is going to be fruitful TP.
 
Poem said:
As already noted - they are split on this issue.
Click to expand...
No one has shown ( you, in particular) that a significant number of Christians are split on this issue. There is no evidence that they care.
Poem said:
Every apologetic I have looked at appears half-baked.
Click to expand...

The apologetics and their sycophants are well done. They have to rationalize about what " this generation " means, otherwise Jesus is a liar.
Poem said:
I'm not sure going over this is going to be fruitful TP.
Click to expand...
It wasn't the first time.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
No one has shown ( you, in particular) that a significant number of Christians are split on this issue. There is no evidence that they care.
Click to expand...
You are talking in context of this thread where no Christians have thus far shown up to reveal how split they are. My knowledge that they are split is from other than this thread.
Skeptical Greg said:
The apologetics and their sycophants are well done. They have to rationalize about what " this generation " means, otherwise Jesus is a liar.
Click to expand...
I'm not following. They are 'well done'?

Sure, if Jesus got it wrong and was talking about the current generation to whom he addressed his words (those alive when he spoke), then his claim to divinity was fake.
Skeptical Greg said:
It wasn't the first time.
Click to expand...

I agree (errr....I think we are talking about the same thing).
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
All creationists end up there eventually.
Click to expand...
Though of course Armin Moczek isn't a creationist. Do you have an issue with me quoting an ardent evolutionist just being frank?

Denis Noble and co over at The Third Way Of Evolution have have similar issues with Creationists citing their website as supporting their cause - but they clearly state that they are wrong to do so.

You appear to be trying to shut down debate.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
I'm not following. They are 'well done'?
Click to expand...
You said they are " half baked ".. I say they are full baked.
Poem said:
You are talking in context of this thread where no Christians have thus far shown up to reveal how split they are. My knowledge that they are split is from other than this thread.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the 'split'.. Some believe A others believe B.
What are you saying A and B consist of?
 
Lithrael said:
Poem said:
True followers of Jesus are told to love one another and not make war...so no one participating in the Nazi genocide was following Christ.
Click to expand...

While I wasn't even talking about Nazis but rather about good old fashioned Catholic -> Lutheran -> Protestant schisms, I'm inclined to agree with you. Problem is, it seems like true followers of Jesus are pretty thin on the ground and have about as much influence as true prog rock fans.

How many True Christians are there? Enough to talk about? Not enough to stop their incorrectly faithful brethren from slaughtering one another wholesale once in a while.
Click to expand...
How does anyone determine who is or isn’t a true Christian? You both seemed to be repeating the No True Scotsman fallacy.

While I agree NAZI atrocities hardly seems emblematic of the son. They are however, quite typical of the actions of the father.
 
Poem said:
(...)
“The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology. And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”
Click to expand...

How sweet, a textbook god of the gaps, apparently served in earnest not as a joke, and apparently consumed likewise.
 
Poem said:
... I doubt we do have a good idea about eyes...
Click to expand...

We do.

And if we didn't, it would still have been a god of thr gaps. A fallacy. No place there for Jesus worshiping halfwits to force their oafish beliefs in. ...But, in any case, we do.



 
Poem said:
not following.
Click to expand...

that we have some gaps in our understanding, via science, of a thing, does not point at that the science of the thing being wrong. Science is a work in process. ...And in any case, that leaves no space to therefore forcefit theistic nonsense, including Creationist nonsense.



This is elementary, surely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom