Well, Bill, I suggest we disagree in peace here. If you think that a chapter that uses the word create 8 times is talking about redemption, then we have a different view of language that probably can’t be over come . Nice talking with you.
I said “Bible”, as in the entire book.
Then let me point out that I have been talking about early Genesis and its impact on theology and trustworthiness of God. I know we disagree about this point, but if God, claims to be THE creator knows nothing about how creation came about I wouldn’t believe that that God actually knows any thing about redemption. Now that we understand each others position. let’s let this drop. If you want to talk about religion among the hominids fine, that is what I started this thread for. I didn’t start it for any other reason.
1 Like
Why would you assume that God knows nothing about creation? Just because He knows doesn’t mean he has to tell us the details. He didn’t give us the details about nuclear fusion. Does that mean He didn’t create the sun? And this discussion directly bears on what we can take from Genesis so it actually does relate to this thread.
Bill, do you want to talk about religion going way back in time or not?
So what you mean is that this bias problem is universal to humanity, right?
So, Creationists suffer this as much as Evolutionists? But with a pretty important difference:
Evolutionists expect to have feedback when someone can’t replicate the results with other findings.
Creationists only have the echo chamber of their own denominations to keep them on the straight and narrow…
1 Like
So, you would be fine with a Creationist scenario where Adam and Eve are millions of years deep into our past, instead of 6000 years ago?
I already accept religion going way back in time. Further back than you do. And while you can quote all the evidence you like about the reality of this what you can’t do is find any evidence of it in the Bible.
In theory, but as a cancer patient I am amazed at how few important studies can be replicated. Most studies no one tries to replicate because that brings no grant money in. The group-think bias in cancer research is legion. There was a fascinating article that came out about the time my cancer recurred entitled We fought the War on Cancer, and Cancer Won.
The group think was that if you cured a mouse, you could cure a human. Not so. Whole careers and awards were given for mouse cures for human cancers.
"Indeed, it is possible (and common) for cancer researchers to achieve extraordinary acclaim and success, measured by grants, awards, professorships and papers in leading journals, without ever helping a single patient gain a single extra day of life. There is no pressure within science to make that happen. It is no coincidence that the ratio of useful therapy per basic discovery is abysmal. For other diseases, about 20 percent of new compounds arising from basic biological discoveries are eventually approved as new drugs by the FDA. For cancer, only 8 percent are.” Sharon Begley, “We Fought Cancer… And Cancer Won,” Newsweek, Sept 15, 2008, p. 58
“Little wonder, then, that by the 1980s critics were asking why the war on cancer was spending the vast majority of taxpayers’ money on elegant biology that cured millions of mice rather than on the search for more practical advances like these.” Sharon Begley, “We Fought Cancer… And Cancer Won,” Newsweek, Sept 15, 2008, p.62
“”In the mid 1990s Brain Druker of the Oregon Health and Science University Cancer Institute wanted to study a molecule involved in chronic myelogenous leukemia. Targeting that molecule, he thought, might cure CML. ‘People rolled their eyes and asked, ‘What’s new and different about this?’” By ‘new and different,’ they meant scientifically novel, elegant, offering new insight into a basic cellular process. He didn’t even apply for an NCI grant. “I knew I’d just be wasting my time,’ he says. . . .This work led to a useful clinical test, but the work NCI did not fund (a private foundation did) eventually led to Gleevec, the blockbuster CML drug.” Sharon Begley, “We Fought Cancer… And Cancer Won,” Newsweek, Sept 15, 2008, p.62-64
If you aren’t with the flavor du jour of scientific trends, your ideas won’t be funded.
I don’t think this Begley is related to Sharon but I don’t know:
“Glenn Begley was stymied. At the drug giant Amgen, where Begley was vice-president and global head of hematology and oncology research, he was struggling to repeat an animal study of tumor growth by a respected oncologist, published in Cancer Cell. One figure stood out as particularly impressive. But it was proving stubbornly resistant to replication.
In March of 2011, Begely saw a chance to play detective. At the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Orlando, he and a colleague invited the paper’s senior author out to breakfast. Across his orange juice and oatmeal, Begley floated the question: Why couldn’t his group get the same finding as the oncologist?”
The oncologist, whom Begley declines to name, had an easy explanation. ‘He said, ‘We did this experiment a dozen times, got this answer once, and that’s the one we decided to publish.’”
“Begley was aghast. ‘ I thought I’d completely misheard him,’ he says, thinking back on the encounter. ‘It was disbelief, just disbelief.’
As it turned out, the respected oncologist was in good company. A year later, Begley and Lee Ellis, a surgical oncologist at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, published a commentary in Nature about lax standards in preclinical research in cancer. They shared that Amgen scientists couldn’t replicate 47 of 53 landmark cancer studies in animals, including the respected oncologist’s.” Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, “The Power of Negative Thinking,” Science, Oct 4, 2013, p. 68
My life depends on animal studies being TRUE. When 47 of 53 can’t be replicated, that is a problem. But you know something? The researchers don’t care. When some researcher says we ran it twelve times and got this result once so we decided to publish, how comfortable can I be taking trial cancer meds now? I was on a trial that had fantastic animal results and it nearly cost me my ability to walk, and didn’t touch my cancer. Please spare me the idealistic view of science–it is a business and grants are everything. Grants come from publishing a lot of new ideas that cure mice but not humans…
I spent 47 years in the trenches as a scientist and as a manager of scientists. I know your idealistic model of science isn’t reality.
I am curious now, how far back to you take religion?
This is sloppy writing - - or worse, sloppy thinking!
If most studies are not replicated because there’s not much money in it, this is not the same as “lots of studies can’t be replicated”. If the study is important, people attempt to replicate it.
And changing the test from mouse to human is not “replicating” … it’s a brand new study.
Yeah, I do. But applied only to Man, not to the rest of nature.Gbrooks9 you are not going to be able to put me in your box cause I don’t fit any of the popular boxes.
I am not a YEC, and I am an evolutionist. But I also believe God is a miraculous God. He has to be if Christianity is true because without the bodily resurrection of Christ, there is not one bit of data saying Jesus was anything but a rather strange teacher.
2 Likes
I think you speak too soon. Someone who is willing to place Adam and Eve millions of years into the past … but NOT to the rest of nature ??? What does that even mean?
Right now the “box” you are in is labeled “Gobbly-Gook”.
Jeeminy, Sigh, Nope I am not in that box you imagine. The universe was created in a big bang, 13 billion years ago. the earth condensed from a star 4.5 billion years ago or so,and life evolved. What part of that fits your very biased view of me? I have found people are not willing to listen to find out what one believes before stuffing them in boxes. I do believe that Adam was a dead ape and God miraculously took that body and created Adam. And that was done around the time that hominids first appeared on earth.
sheesh, it seems to be Alice in Wonderland here, Verdict first, trial later.
edited to add, you are illustrating that quote you first responded to.
No, @gbob is not saying anything much different than the “ancient Adam” that Ann Gauger and William Lane Craig are investigating. All of them have their own twists, but that’s the general drift.
It’s all in the goods you hand out. Why would you even write your thoughts in this way?:
@gbob responds:
Yeah, I do. But applied only to Man, not to the rest of nature.
Now that you have explained yourself, it is evident that you once again expressed yourself sloppily.
I said “Creationist scenario”… and you said “Yeah…”
But it’s not a creationist scenario… it’s nothing like one.
You affirm evolution for Primates, Great Apes, and all the other non-human groups.
You have ONE miracle: you have God take a dead ape and make him into a human. [Really? That’s your scenario? It would seem to make more sense to be your scenario for Eve being made from the rib of a dead ape…]
Your scenario makes the “Genealogical Adam” scenario at PeacefulScience.Org downright conservative !: he calls for the miraculous creation of just Adam and Eve… but more along the lines of Genesis 2 methodology, and in the midst of a large EVOLVED human population.
You might want to visit Joshua @swamidass at that website to compare notes.
I suppose there’s not much difference between a handful of dust and a handful of dead-ape meat… but most of the scenarios being developed by Dr. S. at least put the creation of just 2 beings 6000 years ago, which provides a relatively comfortable fit for the “lucky couple” having an influence on the development of agriculture in the ANE.
Thank you Jay, I much appreciate it. People just want to see me through their filter. and then ignore me.
1 Like
Well, gbrooks, I won’t claim, and never have claimed to be without communicational flaws. It must be nice to be without them like you, and I aspire to that level of ability some day.
I would say, the way I view Adam’s creation, it IS a creation event, so what am I supposed to say when asked about that? I believe God was miraculously involved in creating Adam. I know that isn’t popular among this crowd.
I have been referred to Joshua, but a population of Adam’s and Eves, destroys, in my view some very important theological issues, in my view, and they can be seen to be addressed in my "Does a small brain make you dumb? Thread. Further, genetic data, which I will get a post out on it sooner or later, says humans have been one interbreeding population for millions of years. Why? Because the mutational diversity in some of our genes in today’s human population is such that the gene goes back into the very distant past, millions of years. The Opsin gene comes to mind.
Here is the deal, The Bible goes to a lot of trouble to tell us all these details of Adam and Eve and today we believe they are wrong, erroneous, and nonsense. As a partial answer to Bill’s question about God knowing nothing, if the Scripture is divinely inspired, then this god knew nothing about what happened in creation of man.
Bible says, one man modern view says: Population
Bible says, rib came from Adam Modern view: that is nonsense, see above
Bible says, God taught animal names to Adam Modern view, language didn’t start that way
Bible says, there was a tree that Modern view, that is nonsense it arose gradually
gave dangerous knowledge
How many wrong things does it take until we simply say, This God is clueless.
Now, if the Bible isn’t divinely inspired but just a bunch of stories from an insignificant Neolithic tribe, then why should we think it tells us any really true things metaphysically, like how to be saved???
Im sure you won’t like the above, but in my book logic requires the above. If it is just a stupid story, don’t make it more than it is—a really stupid story.
Edited to add, yeah, dead meat comes from the idea that God said, for dust you were and to dust you will return. Well, Adam when he died, was a corpse.
1 Like
The difference between you and me is not that I am without flaws. Far from it. But I don’t claim victimhood when people are quick to judge a confused paragraph as incomprehensible. I accept the blame for making the paragraph incomprehensible.
You do not make friends easily if you are always blaming the listener for JUMPING to the conclusion that you are confusing.
I’m a Unitarian Universalist… so I’m probably the one most likely to appreciate your assessments that you have listed.
But so what? You trash Genesis … now what?
Is this some reverse psychology you want to apply to Creationists to get them over to … whatever side you think they should go to?
You still haven’t explained the reason for your scenario… other than to boggle the mind of conventional Trinitarians everywhere?