tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1224306876360120647..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: 10 questionsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60792011409552034582015-06-22T14:33:15.717-04:002015-06-22T14:33:15.717-04:00"Especially a species that often only produce..."Especially a species that often only produces one or two offspring in a lifetime." <-- He obviously has never met a Catholic family.... :-P<br /><br />BTW, if only a pair of individuals is a death sentence for a species, why are bacteria thriving so much?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82615159223445946882015-06-22T13:53:31.374-04:002015-06-22T13:53:31.374-04:00Casper Rigsby
"The bible claims that two of ...Casper Rigsby<br /><br />"The bible claims that two of every animal, a male and female, got onto the boat."<br /><br />Among his other ignorances, Casper is biblically illiterate. Gen 7 notes "seven pairs of all clean animals" and "a pair of the animals that are not clean."<br /><br />"First off, science tells us that it is nearly a physical impossibility for one male and one female to preserve a species. Especially a species that often only produces one or two offspring in a lifetime. If infant mortality doesn't wipe them out, genetic disorders due to inbreeding almost certainly would."<br /><br />I presume Casper is likewise alluding to the question of Adam and Eve and genetic diversity. How can a single pair of human beings account for all the genetic diversity in humans today? Population geneticists estimate a minimum population size of around 10,000 people needed to produce the genetic diversity we see in humanity today.<br /><br />1. First off, at the bare minimum, Adam and Eve only really needed to produce enough genetic diversity to account for Noah, his wife, and their children. However, beyond Noah, we should ask how we account for modern genetic diversity from eight humans. Of course, eight is still a lot less than 10,000. But I mention it because it's an overlooked point by many atheists, and as such again a reflection of their biblical illiteracy.<br /><br />2. Next, there are various ways population genetics calculate minimum population size. But depending on which is used, there are different results. I've seen estimates of 4,000 and 10,000 to over 10,000. I think I once saw ~1,000 somewhere as well, but I can't seem to find it. Still, even if so, 1,000 is far more than eight. But my immediate point is just that we see estimates can vary and vary quite widely depending on what variables are plugged into the equations. Estimates are highly dependent on what models are used to calculate these estimates, and the models aren't without their assumptions (as well as flaws).<br /><br />3. Depending on the model, the assumptions may be:<br /><br />That there is a constant mutation rate.<br /><br />That there is a constant population size at a particular time. <br /><br />That there are no migrations into and/or out of the population. <br /><br />That there is random breeding. <br /><br />That random processes are the only genetic determinants.<br /><br />That the same locale where modern humans reside is the same geographic origin of the group's genetic diversity (rather than allowing for the fact that populations may have moved around quite often in this region throughout history).<br /><br />That Neanderthals, Homo erectus, and perhaps other hominids are separate species from modern human beings (whereas if they're the same species then population geneticists are potentially leaving out a large piece of the puzzle in their calculations).<br /><br />The list could go on.<br /><br />4. Perhaps the strongest population genetics argument against Adam and Eve (or Noah and his family) is the argument based on HLA genes. This is championed by Francisco Ayala, among others. However, Ann Gauger has pointed out its many flaws in her chapter "The Science of Adam and Eve" in the book <i>Science and Human Origins</i>. <br /><br />What's more, Gauger argues on her interpretation it's possible the HLA genes in fact support an argument for present human genetic diversity from two human ancestors.<br /><br />5. Finally, there are meta-assumptions, if I can call them that, which are present in most if not all the models. These meta-assumptions would include the evolutionary tree of life is indeed a tree, the intentional omission of non-natural acts in line with methodological naturalism, and so forth. As such, it seems to be a case of population geneticists who subscribe to neo-Darwinists arguing population genetics minimum population size estimations are accurate based on population genetics which in turn assume neo-Darwinian assumptions. It's all a bit circular.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10822126986281071602015-06-22T01:22:59.944-04:002015-06-22T01:22:59.944-04:00When I said Casper said the Bible doesn't cond...When I said Casper said the Bible doesn't condemn rape, I obviously meant rape as an injury toward the woman. I read Casper's entire article before reading Steve's blogpost. Casper does acknowledge the Bible condemns rape, but (Casper claims) merely for economic reasons distinct from the harm it causes the woman.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48444704440716863572015-06-22T00:56:50.957-04:002015-06-22T00:56:50.957-04:00For Casper to say that the Bible doesn't conde...For Casper to say that the Bible doesn't condemn rape is ludicrous. In the Bible rape is so wrong for so many reasons that it's understood, assumed and presumed throughout its pages and in the Jewish culture as even recorded in extra-Biblical writings and histories (e.g. Talmud etc.). It's not specifically said to be evil in the Bible precisely because it is SO VERY evil that it didn't require an explicit statement. For Casper to write what he did is to be ignorant of the rape of Dinah by Shechem and of Tamar by Amnon. In both cases it was understood that rape brought on shame on the victim even though the Bible teaches that, all things being equal, we ought to promote people's dignity (being made in God's image). <br /><br />Rape also endangered a virgin's future economic survival because a rape victim would be less appealing to suitors. She would find it difficult to find a husband who would financially support her in the harsh conditions of the ANE. That's probably why there's the law that a rapist was required to marry a victim who was an unbetrothed virgin. Though, it's possible that that law is in regards to seduction rather than rape. Some argue that the woman and/or the father (or brother who might be protecting her) had the right to refuse marriage and still require financial compensation. If so, then the final decision of whether a marriage took place was in the hands of the offended party, not the rapist or seducer (see this <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2014/06/the-bibles-attitude-to-rape/" rel="nofollow">video lecture by George Athas</a>).<br /><br />Generally speaking, the majority of both men and woman and most cultures (whether Jew or Gentile) in every era (before, during and after the Mosaic and later the Messianic covenant) have thought marriage to be a special blessing even apart from Biblical teaching since it's part of General Revelation, natural law, the inward work of the law written on all hearts, God given human conscience, and due to the tradition regarding marriage passed down from Adam and Eve to (and through) their descendants to the present time. The Bible agrees with and and acknowledges this, along with explaining this virtually universal attitude toward marriage. Because of this, in the Bible marriage was/is understood to be one of the special blessing of God for both men and women. <b>RAPE INTERFERES WITH THAT BLESSING</b>. So, obviously, rape is immoral. Biblical morality is not just based on the explicit commands of God, but includes the principles and attitudes the Bible promotes. Also, moral deliberation includes making <b>inferences</b> based on moral commands, principles and advocated attitudes. That's why rape is so CLEARLY immoral according to the Bible. It violates a woman's rights and hopeful prospects. Not to mention that it violates the only Biblically sanctioned expression of sexual intercourse, viz. within marriage. This of course is not to deny that some marriages were arranged or that sometimes women (<b>AND MEN</b>, don't forget) were culturally pressured to marry someone against their wishes. But that's completely different from rape. Also, Christ's relationship with His Bride (the Church corporately) is one of monogamy. Each individual believer joining himself/herself voluntarily [from the human perspective] to Christ (on the Baptistic view). I say on the Baptistic view because this differs for paedobaptists. I say from the human perspective because in Calvinism our voluntary acceptance of Christ is ultimately due to God's irresistible grace changing our sinful unwillingness to joyful regenerate willingness. The point being that I believe Christ's relationship with the Church may serve as a model regarding God's ideal for marriage being voluntary for both the man and woman even though in times past God made a concession to the cultural norm of arranged marriages. ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74974315080421102772015-06-22T00:55:14.286-04:002015-06-22T00:55:14.286-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40278809883952355712015-06-21T22:49:33.828-04:002015-06-21T22:49:33.828-04:00I take the Van Tillian view, but I don't think...I take the Van Tillian view, but I don't think that this contradicts the idea that outside of Scripture God has limited the amount of extra-Biblical evidence so that such external evidence is not rationally coercive. Because, while God ordains all things that come to pass, most human decisions are ordained by God to be made by humans in a rational or semi-rational way. Which means, if God made the extra-Biblical evidence rationally coercive for everyone then it would be very difficult or impossible for anyone to not believe in God (whether regenerately or unregenerately/nominally). I believe God limits the extra-Biblical evidence for providential and historical reasons. For example, to make room for the exercise/development of Christian virtues (like trust [which is a different kind of faith that's well described in Mere Christianity]) and non-Christian expression of total depravity; make room for the strict merit of condemnation and graciously "merited" Christian rewards; make room for election and reprobation; for grace and justice etc. Calvinism can encompass (but isn't limited to) a Soul-Making theodicy. <br /><br />As Pascal wrote: <i>The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it.</i><br /><br />I've explored these issues in two of my blogposts (<a href="http://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-hiddenness-of-god.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/detecting-and-finding-god.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50743259454090605182015-06-21T22:48:48.027-04:002015-06-21T22:48:48.027-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13593488549448309082015-06-21T22:48:21.829-04:002015-06-21T22:48:21.829-04:00You see, one cannot have both proof and faith. The...<i>You see, one cannot have both proof and faith. The two, as with many other ideas I've mentioned, are mutually exclusive. The reason for this is that faith is the belief in something which cannot be proven, so if you have proof you can't have faith because proof negates faith. No one needs faith to believe that which is proven to be true.</i><br /><br />That's a false dilemma/dichotomy. Between "faith" and "proof" there can be "evidence." Evidence that doesn't rise to the level of absolute apodictic proof. In which case, one can still exercise faith in the presence of evidence.<br /><br />Moreover, as I understand it, according to some versions of Van Tillian presuppositionalism Scripture is self-attesting such that Scripture does rise to the level of proof. Since the Self-Testimony of God (who is omniscient and cannot lie) is the greatest and most certain foundation and bedrock for belief. Faith in this view is not belief contrary to evidence, or in the absence of evidence, or even balanced evidence for or against the Christian faith. Rather, Faith in this view is defined as believing in God's necessarily true Self-Testimony. In which case, faith isn't <i>contrasted</i> with proof, but faith is believing WITH absolute proof, namely the testimony of God which is necessarily true and the greatest evidence and proof of all. The sensus divinitatis, the work of the law in the heart and the (non-redemptive) *external* testimony of the Holy Spirit <i>ought</i> to bring everyone who is fortunate enough to be exposed to special revelation [not all are] to inevitably become convinced of the truth of Christianity. But sin prevents that (and so long as the Holy Spirit's sovereign testimony remains external and not internal). So while Casper Rigsby contrasts and opposes faith and (or versus) proof, for some Van Tillians, faith and proof perfectly agree. Faith is believing absolute proof.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63775588183006180162015-06-21T21:08:53.911-04:002015-06-21T21:08:53.911-04:00Re: The kind of slavery the critic of Christianity... Re: The kind of slavery the critic of Christianity is, most likely, talking about...<br /><br /> "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:16):Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05188552152542948474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3299744290872325372015-06-21T16:54:20.831-04:002015-06-21T16:54:20.831-04:00Excellent post Steve, you really are a haven for a...Excellent post Steve, you really are a haven for an apologist enthusiast such as <br /><br />Some comments in response, Dt 22:28 in my view isn't about rape, its analogous to exodus 22:16, it refers to a man who has sex with an unbetrothed virgin, requiring him to pay her bridal price and marry her, if you look at exodua 22:16 it has the exact same punishment as in Deuteronomy 22:28<br /><br />Also on the subject of Gen 22 there is a wonderful article on that elaborates on your point here about Gen 22 being non repeatable<br /><br />http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/pastoral-pensees-irrational-violence-reconsidering-the-logic-of-obedienceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com