Why Did Old Testament People Live So Long?

[thesometimesaint]

Yay for Catholic Augustinian Friars!

 

P.S.  Here's a nice list of many of the Catholic clergy who also made great advances in science.

 

[Calm]

Not derail the discussion but abortion has so little to do with average life span it isn't worth talking about.

No I can see the reasoning...if they take infant mortality rates into account, there might be a reason to take into account some abortions...the debate is to take in all or just the ones that would have in the past contributed to the infant mortality rate.

I can also see the argument that if the pregnancies were not aborted, there would live to be part of the mortality count, so why not count them anyway if they could be shown to live past birth. One of the things the mortality rate measures is man's effect on other men's life...should that effect be limited to only after birth given some medical interventions that improve life occur pre birth, so perhaps the negative intentional pre birth effects should be measured as well.

[thesometimesaint]

No I can see the reasoning...if they take infant mortality rates into account, there might be a reason to take into account some abortions...the debate is to take in all or just the ones that would have in the past contributed to the infant mortality rate.

I can also see the argument that if the pregnancies were not aborted, there would live to be part of the mortality count, so why not count them anyway if they could be shown to live past birth. One of the things the mortality rate measures is man's effect on other men's life...should that effect be limited to only after birth given some medical interventions that improve life occur pre birth, so perhaps the negative intentional pre birth effects should be measured as well.

 

Life expectancy is measured from live birth to what would be a normal(Statistical Average) age for death.

[Rob Osborn]

The theory of evolution is not a fact (in the scientific sense) period. It exists to explain scientific facts. It is the best explanation we have and has not been disproven.

 

And again, in science nothing can ever be definitively and utterly proven. For comparison science cannot definitively prove that you exist. The evidence is strong that you do. There seems to be a being there. The facts back it up so you could say that you exist only as a scientific theory. It is possible that the facts backing up this theory may be found to be in error or we will find a better theory to explain the facts that doesn't include you existing. In other words theories are as close as it gets to a "fact" (non-scientific definition). So your bottom line is at best misleading and at worst nonsense.

So, when I go to sites such as NCSE and they say evolution is a fact they are really misleading and lying to people. http://ncse.com/cej/8/1/theory-fact-evolution .

gotcha. I think we are on the same page now- even the NCSE cant define facts and so they just mislead people. Gotcha.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

So, when I go to sites such as NCSE and they say evolution is a fact they are really misleading and lying to people. http://ncse.com/cej/8/1/theory-fact-evolution .

 

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of that fact. Facts don't change. Our understanding of those facts certainly does.

[The Nehor]

So, when I go to sites such as NCSE and they say evolution is a fact they are really misleading and lying to people. http://ncse.com/cej/8/1/theory-fact-evolution .gotcha. I think we are on the same page now- even the NCSE cant define facts and so they just mislead people. Gotcha.

Nope, they are using the word fact in the non-scientific way in that context and evolution is a fact in that context.

We are nowhere near the same page and your attempt at sarcastic mocking here is feeble and puerile.

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of that fact. Facts don't change. Our understanding of those facts certainly does.

Hum...Didn't Nehor say that in science theories cant be proven as fact? Evolution is a theory. I see a lot of deception here and its not going away. I said a while back that micro-evolution was a fact but that it was a theory as to if that fact could be the cause of all life. I called that atheory and possibly incorrect. The we got into this great semantic debate over "theory" and "fact" and now, in the end we are back to the same argument only now you guys are arguing my position? This is why arguing with evolutionists gets one nowhere.

What we need to do is establish the actual facts in layman's terms so that we can cut all the philosophy and semantic BS out of it. Here-

We both agree that small evolution within species happens, is documented and is a fact.

If these small evolutionary changes has been the cause for all species arising from a common ancestor- that is not established as "fact" or "truth" in the sense of how we define truth and fact- it isn't certain.

Now, if you guys continue all the philosophy and semantic BS I am done debating. You know exactly how I am using those terms above. Agree with my two statements and lets move on.

[Rob Osborn]

Nope, they are using the word fact in the non-scientific way in that context and evolution is a fact in that context.

We are nowhere near the same page and your attempt at sarcastic mocking here is feeble and puerile.

So, even scientists use the word in a sneaky and misleading way. Gotcha!

[The Nehor]

So, even scientists use the word in a sneaky and misleading way. Gotcha!

No, they are translating into normal English. Evolution is about as much of a fact as you are in the non-scientific sense of the word.

Hum...Didn't Nehor say that in science theories cant be proven as fact? Evolution is a theory. I see a lot of deception here and its not going away. I said a while back that micro-evolution was a fact but that it was a theory as to if that fact could be the cause of all life. I called that atheory and possibly incorrect. The we got into this great semantic debate over "theory" and "fact" and now, in the end we are back to the same argument only now you guys are arguing my position? This is why arguing with evolutionists gets one nowhere.What we need to do is establish the actual facts in layman's terms so that we can cut all the philosophy and semantic BS out of it. Here-We both agree that small evolution within species happens, is documented and is a fact.If these small evolutionary changes has been the cause for all species arising from a common ancestor- that is not established as "fact" or "truth" in the sense of how we define truth and fact- it isn't certain.Now, if you guys continue all the philosophy and semantic BS I am done debating. You know exactly how I am using those terms above. Agree with my two statements and lets move on.

Theories can be a fact (in the non-scientific sense) but they cannot be proven true absolutely and for all time.

I don't agree with your two sentences. The reason I brought in the philosophy and semantic BS is that you were confusing common uses of a word with scientific uses of a word to distort what scientists mean to back your point. If you were not trying to use the distinction as a weaselly way to confuse the issue I doubt anyone would have brought it up.

In laymen's terms evolution is a fact (in the non-scientific sense). Both micro and macro (though that division is a very artificial one) are facts.

Now if we can just all agree with these two statements we can move on.

Edited March 28, 2014 by The Nehor

[thesometimesaint]

Hum...Didn't Nehor say that in science theories cant be proven as fact? Evolution is a theory. I see a lot of deception here and its not going away. I said a while back that micro-evolution was a fact but that it was a theory as to if that fact could be the cause of all life. I called that atheory and possibly incorrect. The we got into this great semantic debate over "theory" and "fact" and now, in the end we are back to the same argument only now you guys are arguing my position? This is why arguing with evolutionists gets one nowhere.

What we need to do is establish the actual facts in layman's terms so that we can cut all the philosophy and semantic BS out of it. Here-

We both agree that small evolution within species happens, is documented and is a fact.

If these small evolutionary changes has been the cause for all species arising from a common ancestor- that is not established as "fact" or "truth" in the sense of how we define truth and fact- it isn't certain.

Now, if you guys continue all the philosophy and semantic BS I am done debating. You know exactly how I am using those terms above. Agree with my two statements and lets move on.

 

Nehor is absolutely correct. You can never prove a theory. The only thing you can do is disprove it.

 

Evolution is a fact. You observe it every time you have a child. You prove evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of that fact. IE; Numbers are fact. Numerals, what we call mathematics, are just the theory that explains that fact. IE: The computer you are using right now uses only off and on switches. That is fact. Computer science theory is the explanation of that fact.

 

There is no deception on my part. I make simple statements of absolute fact. As I have said before you are free to believe any thing you want. I have no desire to take that freedom away from you. My only desire is for you to make correct statements of fact, and not use your own special definitions of words.

 

A fact is a statement of reality. I can't get anymore layman than that.

 

Evolution is not about the cause of all life. That is Abiogenesis. Something not rearly as well understood as Evolution. Evolution is about how life changed once it was here. Please stop using your own special definitions of words.

 

At the genetic level "small" evolution is exactly the same as large evolution. It is a change in Allele frequency. Any change in Allele frequency that is below the speciation level(Still able to reproduce) no matter how large in the appearance of the individual it is is an example of micro-evolution. Any change in Allele frequency that is above the speciation level(Not able to reproduce) no matter how small in the appearance of the individual is is a example of macro-evolution. It is all Evolution.

 

Oh I agree that continued discussion is fruitless as long as you don't use standard dictionary definitions of words, but cling to your own special definitions of words.

[David T]

There's a pejorative polemic use of the word 'Cult', and there's a sociological and scholastic usage. It would be proper to acknowledge the term 'temple cult' in the scholastic usage in a published paper without intended offence in a different way than the usage in a vilifying sermon or diatribe, in which the polemic pejorative is intended.

 

Context is important, and words can have substantial differences and nuance in relation to context. An individual can be fluent in both, thus referring neutrally to the Israelite Temple Cult in a scholastic manner and context, and also, in a different context, referring to the Jonestown Cult in the polemic pejorative without being sneaky or misleading, or in any way attempting to correlate the two.

[thesometimesaint]

There's a pejorative polemic use of the word 'Cult', and there's a sociological and scholastic usage. It would be proper to acknowledge the term 'temple cult' in the scholastic usage in a published paper without intended offence in a different way than the usage in a vilifying sermon or diatribe, in which the polemic pejorative is intended.

 

Context is important, and words can have substantial differences and nuance in relation to context. An individual can be fluent in both, thus referring neutrally to the Israelite Temple Cult in a scholastic manner and context, and also, in a different context, referring to the Jonestown Cult in the polemic pejorative without being sneaky or misleading, or in any way attempting to correlate the two.

 

Agreed.

[Skylla]

This thread is done.

 

Skylla