How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

[Purple Knight]

This is not a question of whether or not evolution is crazy, but how crazy it seems at first glance.

That is, when we discard our experiences and look at claims as if through new eyes, what do we find when we look at evolution? I Believe we can find a great deal of common ground with this question, because when I discard my experience as an animal breeder, when I discard my knowledge, and what I've been taught, I might look at evolution with the same skepticism as someone who has either never been taught anything about it, or someone who has been taught to distrust it.

Personally my mind goes to the keratinised spines on the tongues of cats. Yes, cats have fingernails growing out of their tongues! Gross, right? Well, these particular fingernails have evolved into perfect little brushes for the animal's fur. But I think of that first animal with a horrid growth of keratin on its poor tongue. The poor thing didn't die immediately, and this fits perfectly with what I said about two steps back paying for one forward. This detrimental mutation didn't hurt the animal enough for the hapless thing to die of it, but surely it caused some suffering. And persevering thing that he was, he reproduced despite his disability (probably in a time of plenty that allowed that). But did he have the growths anywhere else? It isn't beyond reason to think of them protruding from the corners of his eyes or caking up more and more on the palms of his hands. Perhaps he had them where his eyelashes were, and it hurt him to even blink. As disturbing as my mental picture is of this scenario, this sad creature isn't even as bad off as this boar, whose tusks grew up and curled until they punctured his brain.





This is a perfect example of a detrimental trait being preserved because it doesn't hurt the animal enough to kill it before it mates. So we don't have to jump right from benefit to benefit. The road to a new beneficial trait might be long, going backwards most of the way, and filled with a lot of stabbed brains and eyelids.

Walking backwards most of the time, uphill both ways, and across caltrops almost the entire trip?

I have to admit, thinking about walking along such a path sounds like, at very least, a very depressing way to get from A to B. I would hope there would be a better way.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1390]

That is fine if you would like to say that Archaebacteria was the first bacteria on Earth. But again that only exacerbates the problem because Archaebacteria has fewer nucleotides.

I never mentioned archaebacteria ... my point was that we don't know what the first life forms were. You just picked something else apparently at random.

What stories are you talking about? That was my point there were not any stories about the dead coming back to life until the death and resurrection of Jesus.

What about all of these?

https://www.learnreligions.com/people-r ... le-4109363

You are speaking of things that only happen in western society. Why would you think that those from a more oriental society like the Hebrews be anything like modern western society?

They were people, so presumably they changed their minds on things. Why would you expect ancient Hebrews would not have this same ability? In fact, I'd argue that all humans since their initial appearance have had the ability to change their minds on things.

Do you know what the customs of 1st century Jews were? Before you could make any evaluation of why Paul changed you would have to know the customs of the Hebrews in the 1st century.

No, but Paul is one dude and capable of changing his mind on something. Why he did that I have no idea, but he certainly had the capability to do it.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1391]

I never mentioned archaebacteria ... my point was that we don't know what the first life forms were. You just picked something else apparently at random.

That is considered the earliest life form on Earth. But what is your point? There was something other than single-cell life on earth. If that is what you are saying all I have to say is WOW!.

What about all of these?

https://www.learnreligions.com/people-r ... le-4109363

They are not stories they actually happen.

They were people, so presumably they changed their minds on things. Why would you expect ancient Hebrews would not have this same ability? In fact, I'd argue that all humans since their initial appearance have had the ability to change their minds on things.

They were people and Paul did obviously change his mind. But it is the consequence of that change that holds people to their belief system even your belief system. When people change their beliefs there are things that they must give up or change. For Paul, it was his livelihood. Paul was a Pharisee that is how he made his living teaching people. He was taught by one of the greatest Jewish teachers. So Paul had a great deal to lose when he made his choice to follow Christianity. This would not have been a flippant choice he would have had to have made but a life-changing and potentially life-ending decision.

No, but Paul is one dude and capable of changing his mind on something. Why he did that I have no idea, but he certainly had the capability to do it.

But it was the consequences of that change that makes his conversion to Christianity so convincing.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1387]

You're off by over 2000 years.

"The kings of Egypt were associated with Osiris in death – as Osiris rose from the dead so they would be in union with him, and inherit eternal life through a process of imitative magic."
"Man, Myth and Magic", Osiris, vol. 5, pp. 2087–2088, S.G.F. Brandon, BPC Publishing, 1971.
The Osiris myth reached its basic form in or before the 24th century BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_myth

Tim Callahan could not defend that position and he is the one who wrote the book on this Osiris nonsense. He admits that there is no reference to the resurrection of Osiris before the 2nd century AD. That is the whole reason why I posted the video above I knew, I would sucker someone into this argument.

It's no one's fault but your own if you use inferior sources.
In any event, Callahan does push back in your own cited video. Perhaps you are not listening carefully. He distinguished between written sources and original sources. Or, have it your way and conclude my research is better than Callahan's.
BTW, if you listen more carefully Callahan makes a distinction between crucifiction [sic] deaths and other forms of murder that predate the Christian myth. The other [fake] scholar is the one who is way off, since he is not (or pretends to not know) aware of the many resurrection myths that long predate Jesus.

Resurrection myths go back to prehistory. They probably come from the knowledge of seeds being planted. As the seed dies, it gives birth to new life.

Campbell explains that the death and resurrection of a savior figure is a common motif in the legends of agricultural societies, since it represents the reality of the cycle of the growth of vegetation: seeds are sown in the earth, grow up into plants that then die and decompose into the earth from which new life arises.

Campbell: The death and resurrection of a savior figure is a common motif in all these legends.... Somebody has had to die in order for life to emerge. I begin to see this incredible pattern of death giving rise to birth, and birth giving rise to death. Every generation has to die in order that the next generation can come.

http://girardianlectionary.net/res/heim ... mpbell.htm

Am I supposed to know who Dunning and Kruger are?

Dunning-Kruger effect is well known.
It refers to a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1393]

It's no one's fault but your own if you use inferior sources.
In any event, Callahan does push back in your own cited video. Perhaps you are not listening carefully. He distinguished between written sources and original sources. Or, have it your way and conclude my research is better than Callahan's.
BTW, if you listen more carefully Callahan makes a distinction between crucifixion [sic] deaths and other forms of murder that predate the Christian myth. The other [fake] scholar is the one who is way off, since he is not (or pretends to not know) aware of the many resurrection myths that long predate Jesus.

Dude, he was asked point-blank for a source and he had no "data" for his belief that resurrections in other religions predated Christianity. That is especially true of Osiris who was specifically mentioned. So do you know of any data before the second century? Please share it.


Resurrection myths go back to prehistory. They probably come from the knowledge of seeds being planted. As the seed dies, it gives birth to new life.
Campbell explains that the death and resurrection of a savior figure is a common motif in the legends of agricultural societies since it represents the reality of the cycle of the growth of vegetation: seeds are sown in the earth, grow up into plants that then die and decompose into the earth from which new life arises.

PROBABLY Really? Do you have any data of any resurrection before the 2nd century? Please share

Campbell: The death and resurrection of a savior figure is a common motif in all these legends.... Somebody has had to die in order for life to emerge. I begin to see this incredible pattern of death giving rise to birth, and birth giving rise to death. Every generation has to die in order that the next generation can come.
http://girardianlectionary.net/res/heim ... mpbell.htm

Data on why they or you believe that. Writings anything. Please share.

Dunning-Kruger effect is well known.
It refers to a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers.

Never heard of that before. But it does sound like something someone would say when their ideas have been totally crushed and they have no response.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1386]


Well that was interesting but let's examine who the Dunning-Krueger effect might be referring to.

Like the last point, you were trying to make. Which was his belief that "soma" in 1 Cor 15:44 was a spiritual body.

historia explained to Difflugia why the Greek did not support his view of the Spiritual Body.

Paul is contrasting a soma psychikon ("natural body") with a soma pneumatikon ("spiritual body") -- the same contrast we just saw him make in 2:14-15, but there about persons.

If soma pneumatikon means a "body made out of spirit" (pneuma) then to be consistent we would have to view the soma psychikon as a "body made out of soul" (psyche). But that can't be Paul's meaning, as the soma psychikon is the body we posses now, which is composed of flesh and blood.

Instead, it seems that what Paul is saying here in 1 Cor. 15:44 is that the body we possess now is animated by or embodied by the soul, while the resurrected body will be animated by or embodied by the Spirit.

But the body in both cases is very much physical, as the word soma would normally entail.

Barnes explained to Difflugia why soma has to be the actual physical body.

Barnes Notes on the Bible
And did all drink the same spiritual drink - The idea here is essentially the same as in the previous verse, that they had been highly favored of God, and enjoyed tokens of the divine care and guardianship. That was manifested in the miraculous supply of water in the desert, thus showing that they were under the divine protection, and were objects of the divine favor. There can be no doubt that by "spiritual drink" here, the apostle refers to the water that was made to gush from the rock that was smitten by Moses. Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:11. Why this is called "spiritual" has been a subject on which there has been much difference of opinion. It cannot be because there was anything special in the nature of the water, for it was evidently real water, suited to allay their thirst. There is no evidence, as many have supposed, that there was a reference in this to the drink used in the Lord's Supper. But it must mean that it was bestowed in a miraculous and supernatural manner; and the word "spiritual" must be used in the sense of supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God. Spiritual blessings thus stand opposed to natural and temporal blessings, and the former denote those which are immediately given by God as an evidence of the divine favor. That the Jews used the word "spiritual" in this manner is evident from the writings of the Rabbis. Thus, they called the manna "spiritual food" (Yade Mose in Shemor Rabba, fol. 109. 3); and their sacrifices they called "spiritual bread" (Tzeror Hammer, fol. 93. 2). - Gill. The drink, therefore, here referred to was that bestowed in a supernatural manner and as a proof of the divine favor.

And MacArthur did also

Then they were given divine provision. They all ate the same spiritual food, the same manna, the same birds that God provided. God provided, you remember, their food. They wanted meat. He gave them bird flesh to eat. They were otherwise given manna, which God provided for them on a regular, routine basis. So they all experienced not only divine direction; divine care in delivering them from Egypt, divine rescue; a divine leader, solidarity with that leader, namely Moses; but divine provision of food and water. They all drank the same spiritual drink. And the spiritual drink was the drink provided by the spiritual source who is God. And I’ve been in that desert out there a number of times, and you could go a long time without finding water out there. But God made sure that two million people wandering for 40 years always had water. And sometimes it even came out of a rock.

We could say it this way: They had been given divine care and guidance out of Egypt. They had been given divine deliverance, miraculous deliverance through the Red Sea. They had been given divine provision of food and water. And they had been given a divine Savior, whose presence was with them at all times. They were always under the special care of the rock who is Christ who followed them, who was really the source of all the miracles that met their needs. It’s a very different way to view Christ than the incarnate way. We look at Him in His incarnation, and we see a Man. We look at Him in His pre-incarnation ministry to Israel, and we see Him as God.

Put that together with the fact that Belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a matter of historical fact.

"Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity." Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 231. (Ehrman is an Atheist)

"Fuller elsewhere refers to the disciples’ belief in the resurrection as “one of the indisputable facts of history.” What caused this belief? That the disciples’ had actual experiences, characterized as appearances or visions of the risen Jesus, no matter how they are explained, is “a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree.”" Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, 142.

"Wright asks how the disciples could have recovered from the shattering experience of Jesus’ death and regrouped afterward, testifying that they had seen the risen Jesus while being quite willing to face persecution because of this belief. What was the nature of the experience that dictated these developments?" N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 109-111.

And the Pharisees a very specific meaning, when they when, speaking of the resurrection.

The Jewish people believed that God created the world. Our physical world is God's creation, and it is good. The Pharisees, in contrast to the Greco-Roman religious beliefs, vigorously affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees stressed a literal resurrection of the physical body, which would be reunited with the spirit of an individual. Their worldview embraced a future restoration of God's original design for his world. The Pharisees envisioned a time of redemption in which God would realign the physical creation with the ethereal realm. -Brad H. Young, Paul, The Jewish Theologian, at 123.
The resurrection of the dead is a core doctrine of traditional Jewish theology. Traditional Jews believe that during the Messianic Age, the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, the Jewish people ingathered from the far corners of the earth and the bodies of the dead will be brought back to life and reunited with their souls. It is not entirely clear whether only Jews, or all people, are expected to be resurrected at this time.

This belief — distinct from, though connected to, the belief in the immortality of the soul — is mentioned explicitly only twice in the Hebrew Bible, in the books of Isaiah and Daniel, though hints of it are extrapolated from other biblical sources. The medieval philosopher Maimonides includes it as one of his 13 principles of the Jewish faith, and the Mishnah states that those who don’t believe in resurrection “have no share in the world to come.” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1) The Amidah prayer recited thrice daily by traditional Jews includes a blessing praising God as the resurrector of the dead. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... -the-dead/

So notice how many people I quoted. So that would mean that I would not be the only one that is "overestimating their ability" to understand and communicate.

How many documented sources did Difflugia use? 1 from a Study Bible without any reference as to who it was that wrote that study note. And Difflutia makes no attempt to explain how his belief that Paul was speaking of a spiritual resurrection explains the known facts.

1. Belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus has always been the central message of Christianity. (Difflugia tried to say that it was not. Again with no references)
2. How there could be so many people who believe they could see the risen Christ.
3. How could Christianity start in the city where Jesus was Crucified.
4. Why would Paul a pharisee change his belief about what resurrection is?


So, say that Macarthur, Barnes, Historia, Erman, Fuller, and Wright do not know what they are talking about if you wish. But you have not cited anyone who agrees with Difflugia.

[Difflugia]

Well that was interesting but let's examine who the Dunning-Krueger effect might be referring to.

If that's really where you want to go with this, sure.

Like the last point, you were trying to make. Which was his belief that "soma" in 1 Cor 15:44 was a spiritual body.

historia explained to Difflugia why the Greek did not support his view of the Spiritual Body.

Historia and I are still discussing that. I'm working on a new response there, in fact. It takes more thought and effort than this thread, so I don't mind taking a break for a moment.

I understand historia's points and they're not that "the Greek did not support" my reading. Historia obviously thinks that Paul meant something different than I think he did, but neither of us has refuted the other's arguments in the way that you seem to imagine, nor do I expect either of us to. I invite you to follow along with the discussion we're having.

Back to the Dunning-Kruger effect, let me ask you a few questions. How well do you read classical Greek? How much classical rhetoric have you studied? How much of Paul's theology have you studied? How much Christian apologetics have you studied?

Now, how would you rate my familiarity with and understanding of those things compared to yours?

I'm not an expert in any of those. Odds are that compared to the experts, I am suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect to at least some degree. First, cognitive biases being what they are, they're hard to control for even when the subject is aware of them. Second, as I might summarize the paper as a pithy aphorism, I don't know what I don't know.

To put a much finer point on things, how much do you think I'm bluffing? How convincing do you think others find your arguments compared to mine? How well do you imagine that others think you're doing?

Notice that I haven't actually answered any of those questions explicitly. Even so, I suspect that a number of people here will think that I'm being mean to you by even asking them the way that I have and perhaps some even think I'm breaking the site rules by doing so. On the other hand, maybe it's me that they're feeling sorry for.

I think one of us is reading the room very, very badly. One of us doesn't know what they don't know. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1396]

Well, the first thing I have to say is. Really DrNoGod's you liked the post. You are a classical rhetoric guy. Well, I will have to say you do have some good ethos.

Historia and I are still discussing that. I'm working on a new response there, in fact. It takes more thought and effort than this thread, so I don't mind taking a break for a moment.

You missed the point. Language is only part of the puzzle, although his point did indicate that the Greek did not support your point. Along with the other scholars that I cited. The totality of the argument has already indicated that your position is simply not tenable.

Back to the Dunning-Kruger effect, let me ask you a few questions. How well do you read classical Greek? How much classical rhetoric have you studied? How much of Paul's theology have you studied? How much Christian apologetics have you studied?

Now, how would you rate my familiarity with and understanding of those things compared to yours?

To tell you the truth I thought you had a better understanding of the Bible and apologetics than what you actually do. You seem to have not known or did not take into account the fact that Paul was a pharisee and the implication of that fact. You also seemed to not have known or just chose to ignore the significant amount of data that support specific aspects of early Christianity, that any theory must explain. Your theory cannot explain basic data of early Christianity like the belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ. This is a confirmed fact, not some debated topic. You did not even attempt to show that this was a debated topic. You simply seem to think that just because you said it was true. That was enough to make it true.

I am pretty sure that may be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Or it could simply mean that you really did not understand what you were talking about.

[Eloi]

As a side note: evolutionists have to prove not only what they say about animals (which they had never done), but about plants as well...I don't know if they've ever invented a botanical family tree...have they? Just curious.

What alternative to evolution do you propose and, more importantly, what can you present as proof of this alternative? Note that your alternative must account for all of our observations concerning living things on this planet from its beginning.

That is the question that you repeatedly ask, as a cliché, and to which we have repeatedly answered, and you still do not understand anything. The creation, called nature, is the proof that the Creator exists, the laws and order in the entire Universe, the beauty and good taste of the things that we have at our disposal, the existence itself and the awareness of it, etc.

You don't need a laboratory or a team of scientists to realize these realities, you just need common sense ... this is why the Bible says:

1 Cor. 1:19 For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
You don't need a laboratory or a team of scientists to realize these realities, you just need common sense ... this is why the Bible says:

1 Cor. 1:19 For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.”

The problem now becomes one of showing these words were actually spoken by the god in question.

20 Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.

And these'ns too.

There's also the problem of the bible claiming dead folks hop up, there was a worldwide flood, and two 9f every animal got em all stuff into a boat.

The bible's about as accurate a provider of truth as a Trump infested politician.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1399]

The bible's about as accurate a provider of truth as a Trump infested politician.