Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[tenkeeper]

Dear brother Z,

someone has stolen something very precious from you, but only temporarily.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Flipper
Wow - someone should tell the theistic evolutionists that. I'm sure they'll be very upset.

Good catch. I was remiss not to exclude theistic evolutionists from point being made. It did occur to me at the time, but I just blew it off. They need to be discussed as a special case.

Originally posted by Flipper
There's not really a mound of supporting evidence for that, other than the gospels, no?

Well there's the testimony of 4, which you dismiss. What would be an acceptable level of evidence or testimonial in your opinion?

Originally posted by Flipper
... can this event (or even possible parts of it) be reconstructed in an experimental suitation and be repeated?

It is my belief that resurrection will be repeated and that you'll get the proof you are looking for. But your point is that the resurrection is not supported by science, and I stipulate to that. Perhaps you will agree that all that is real is not within the purview of science.

Originally posted by Flipper
If you can't tell the difference between literature and science, that's your problem.

I think I can tell the difference. My strong sense is that the New Testament was not written to be mere literature or simple stories for entertainment. The tenor is one of gravity. The authors put their lives in jeopardy by proffering this 'literature'. Again, I realize it is not scientific, but that does make it untrue.

Problems come in different magnitudes. If I am mistaken, then what have I lost? My 70-80 years of life won't be substantially different that yours. If you are mistaken, the problem magnitude increases beyond calculation.

 

[NATEDOG]

This new learning amazes me, Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.

:joker:

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Soulman But as a relativist, what do you think you know? How can you ”know” anything? Absent a fixed, absolute standard, what you think you “know” is only a snapshot of matter in motion. What you “know” is literally here today and gone tomorrow. You can’t have it both ways. On one hand you said that atheists “don't have that ‘fixed yardstick,’ and all we are doing is guessing…”, yet on the other hand you say that you can’t “unknow” what you’ve learned. But, what can you “learn” if we are, in your words, “lost in perpetual uncertainty”?

We can know lots of things, we just can't know them with absolute certainty. I know how to drive a car, for example. I know that I exist. I know that my life works better when I choose to believe that God exists and is a benevolent force in creation. I just can't know any of these things with absolute certainty. My knowledge is the result of supposition, imagination, and personal experience, and can change as these things dictate.

Originally posted by Soulman As for believers not being able to imagine life without their beliefs, keep in mind that most believers were not always believers. I don’t have to “imagine” life without my beliefs, I remember my life without my beliefs. This is true for most of the Christians I’ve ever met, who, like me, accepted the gospel as an adult. Also, for the record, characterizing believers as psychological cripples who cling to a “fantasy” of God because they can’t face the reality of a Godless universe is an attack on the mental state and character of the believer. To dismiss religious presuppositions as a form of “mass hysteria” is too easy, and an intellectual cop out.

Yes, it's true that many "believers" (in absolutes) have not always believed in those absolutes all their lives, but most also did not fully understand relativism nor have they made peace with the reality of their own ignorance. I say this because it's obvious that they were not comfortable living without their belief in the absolute, and this is evidenced by how intently they would hold to it now.

I don't mean to disparage people who believe in absolutes, but the fact is that they can't prove those beliefs, and they are in that sense "imaginary". I myself choose to believe in a "God" and I admit also that my God is essentially imaginary. I can't prove it exists any more than anyone else can. But I don't really care. The belief itself has it's own intrinsic value for me, and that is enough. I am content to be an ignorant human and to allow "God" to remain a mystery that I can only aproach through faith.

Originally posted by Soulman You are saying that belief in a Supreme Being -- historically humanity’s majority position -- is delusional, while admitting that atheism is “lost in perpetual uncertainty.” You can’t beat something with nothing, and the nothing of perpetual uncertainty is all relativistic atheism has to offer. How that is a “superior” or a more “psychologically well adjusted” position is yet to be seen. Would you care to compare the relative quality of life, family dysfunction, and suicide rates of Christian theologians versus the psychiatric profession?

How these philosophical choices effect other people is their business. If their beliefs are hurting them, they ought to change them. I realize this is far harder to do than it is for me to say, but the truth is that we do all have the ability to choose what we will believe is the "truth". We have this choice precisely because we CAN'T prove one is absolutely right and all the others are wrong. For this reason and some others, I am grateful for my own human inability to grasp absolutes.

Originally posted by Soulman You would agree, I think, that Christian theologians and philosophers are, as a rule, an educated people. There are many examples of brilliant, educated scholars, atheist and Christian alike. Jonathan Edwards, for example, is considered by Christians and non-Christians to be one of the most influential scholars ever produced in America. Yet, because he believes in the God of the Bible, you would dismiss him (and all theists) as “neurotic” and a closet thumb-sucker, unable to cope with reality. It seems obvious, given the caliber of the big brains on either side of the faith issue, that “raw intelligence” has very little to do with whether or not one accepts the truth statements of the gospel. Characterizing belief in God as a “coping” or “mental health” problem is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you are suggesting that atheists, as a special group, are more “evolved.”

Well, I certainly don't think Christians are stupid, thumb-sucking dimwits, falling for any and all superstitions introduced into their tiny minds. But I do believe that all humans are easily given to fantasy and superstition because our grasp of actual reality is so limited while our imaginations are so powerful. We humans live in a world that exists in our minds, constructed on bits and pieces of actual information gleaned from reality by our senses, but assembled into a "whole" by our imaginations. It very often happens that the world we imagine appeals to us more than the one we actually experience, and so we tend to deny those experiences that might discourage our image of what the world is. I think that this propensity in us can become dangerous and the way to avoid it is to first accept that this is how we are. I do think it's healthy for us to admit to our own profound ignorance about the nature of reality and existence. But many of us will not do so.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Freak
Huh? "Chair" is "Chair" or "chair" is "chair." If I choose to give the "c" a lower case then that it is what it is--"chair" is "chair"--can it be (the way I sequenced it) any other way? Of course not. It is absolute as I placed it.

You have been referring to the "structure" of the word "chair." I would describe the structure as the physical formation of the letters and words. Would you agree?

If so, then the word "chair" is a whole which must be described by its parts. Those parts are letters, which also have parts - lines and curves, which also have parts - ink or pixels, which also have parts, molocules - then atoms - then particles.

I'm not speaking of the pixels but rather the "letter" or even the "word"--in this case "chair."

I'm speaking of the language not of the ink, atoms, etc....

Only because that is where you are drawing the line. And that line, when talking about structure, is arbitrary.

Yes it can in the form of language--"chair" is "chair"--study up on the philosophy of language.

Either you're talking about structure or you're not. Which is it?

Let me ask you, if "chair" is only "chair", then is "c h a i r" also the same?

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

That's all right -- he didn't have to take every species. How many times have I got to tell you guys this?

I said that because back in the sixties when I was a boy I went to a “training” session on the ark and they were using species as a “kind”. The reason was because at the time a species generally had animals that did not interbreed in the wild. And the instructors believed that calling animals that interbreed a kind would be too much evolution.

They're still the same kind of animal. A cheetah might be a cheetah, but it's still a cat.

Okay so I’ll take it that you don’t consider animals that have evolved to the point of being sexually incompatible to be macroevolution. I would point out that that is the example that is used when defined in the dictionary though.

See post #774.

Yes I saw that and even quoted it. However I was hoping for something a little more specific. Would you be comfortable with the following statements?:

1. Animals that do not interbreed in the wild are more divergent than those that do.

2. Animals that will interbreed but produce sterile offspring are more divergent than those that do not produce sterile offspring.

3. Animals that can not produce offspring are more divergent than those that produce sterile offspring.

Also do you think the comparison of genetics between animals is a satisfactory way of determining the relationship of animals? If so, is there a number that you would accept for a “kind” such as 1% or 2%, etc. divergence?

Is there some standard that you could give for your definition of macroevolution?

How do you know they all left at one time? Perhaps Noah let the 'slow-moving lamb-chops' off first.

Okay lets look at that. The lamb-chop types would have had to at least have enough time to reproduce so they wouldn’t be eliminated by the carnivores. Did Noah hold back the carnivores for a year or so and if so what did they eat?

How do you think they got there? My guess is they walked, for the most part.

That was my point. That’s a long way to walk for say sloths who travel very slowly. When did they find time to reproduce or raise young if they were on the road all the time?

What makes you think it took them 2,000 years to get here?

Because the flood was about 4000 years ago and I assumed by 2000 years ago they were becoming established so that we have what we do today. What number would you give?

I have no idea what you're getting at.

See my comment about the sloths above.

We've got marsupials in America right now, and there used to be a lot more -- check the fossil record. They simply managed to thrive in Australia, whereas they didn't in other places.

Okay the let me put it another way. Why didn’t any placenta type animals go to Australia?

Is that how you think they got there -- by swimming?

Well it is an island. How do you think they got there?

Strictly speaking, foxes and wolves probably shared a common ancestor (some kind of dog), but I don't think foxes descended from the wolves that exist today, much like you don't believe that man descended from modern apes. Nonetheless, what we're dealing with here is micro-evolution, which few (if any) creationists dispute.

But you didn’t answer my question. Do you think going from a wolf to a fox in a couple thousand years or less is a lot of evolution?

Would you mind giving me your beliefs about the following by picking one and if you pick something else, give an explanation.

1. All the cat-kind animals you listed were created before the flood, and Noah just took one pair of them. Then evolution took over and all the cat-kinds evolved.

2. One cat-kind of animal was created and evolved into all the different cat-kinds during the first 2000 years and Noah just took one cat-kind. Then the cat-kinds evolved again.

3. Only one cat-kind of animal was created and never changed over the first 2000 years. Noah took a pair of those and after the flood evolution took over and all the cat-kinds evolved.

4. Something else.

Do you believe that the earth rotates around the sun and if so, why? This a serious question and I’m not being sarcastic, just requesting an answer.

 

[Charismata]

Seems Zakath want's to debate from strictly a philosophical point of view being that he has stated he isnt a scientist.

We can define:

GOD - greatest conceivable being, i.e. the being or existence than which nothing superior is conceivable (Anselm's essential insight in his ontological argument.)


A. Argument from Creation and Possible Worlds
B. Argument from Eternity
C. Argument from Modality of Existence
D. Argument from Omniscience
E. Argument from Ultimate Creation
F. Argument from Possible Worlds
G. Argument by Alvin Plantinga

A. Argument from Creation and Possible Worlds

1) An essential property of GOD is the status as supreme or unsurpassable creator, i.e. the creator than which none greater can be conceived.
2) If a being is conceived as capable of creating only our world and/or some possible worlds, then it cannot be GOD, since a greater creator could then be conceived, i.e. one capable of creating all possible worlds.

3) We must therefore conceive GOD as creator of all possible worlds.

4) A being necessarily exists or is instantiated in every world it can create. Since GOD can by definition create all possible worlds, He must be existent in any world that exists.

5) A simple alternative therefore confronts us: (a) GOD is logically possible (i.e. exists in at least one possible world), which entails that there is no possible world in which GOD fails to exist, being the creator of all possible worlds. (b) GOD fails to exist in at least one possible world, which entails that GOD fails to exist in all possible worlds, i.e. GOD is logically impossible.

6) It follows that the existence and the nonexistence of GOD cannot both be logically possible. As the unsurpassable creator of all possible worlds, GOD must either be instantiated in all possible worlds or else instantiated in none. Either the existence or the nonexistence of GOD is logically necessary.

7) GOD is logically possible (i.e. conceivable without contradiction).

8) Therefore, it is logically necessary that GOD exists.

B. Argument from Eternity

1) An essential property of GOD is His eternal or everlasting existence. If GOD could exist for only a finite duration, or was capable of coming into or passing out of existence, He would not be the supreme conceivable being. Nothing less than eternity is compatible with the GOD idea.

2) If GOD exists, He exists eternally; it is therefore logically impossible for Him to cease to exist. Conversely, if GOD does not exist, He eternally fails to exist; it is therefore logically impossible for Him to "come into existence".

3) Suppose that the existence and nonexistence of GOD are both logically possible. Then: If GOD exists, His nonexistence must be a logical possibility which, by virtue of GOD's essential eternity, can never, through infinite time, be realized or instantiated. Conversely, if GOD does not exist, then by the same logic His existence must be a logical possibility which can never, throughout eternity, be instantiated.

4) A logical possibility whose instantiation is logically impossible is an incoherent, self-contradictory notion. Such a logical possibility which logically cannot ever be realized, is indistinguishable from logical impossibility.

5) The eternal existence essential to the GOD concept entails that either GOD exists by logical necessity, since His nonexistence is logically impossible; or conversely, GOD fails to exist by logical necessity, since His existence is logically impossible. The issue is purely conceptual: If GOD is logically possible, He must exist by logical necessity.

6) GOD is logically possible (i.e. conceivable without contradiction).

7) Therefore, it is logically necessary that GOD exists.

C. Argument from Modality of Existence

1) If both the existence and nonexistence of GOD are logically possible, i.e. genuinely conceivable (which entails their conceivability for GOD, should He exist), then GOD would belong to the class of logically contingent entities, like ourselves.

2) The definition of GOD precludes the status of contingency in any sense because, as Anselm saw, we can conceive of an ultimate existent for whom its own nonexistence is not conceivable. To have even a conceivable alternative to one's existence is a deficiency, which by definition cannot characterize GOD.

3) The modality of ontologically and logically necessary (or non-contingent) existence, in contrast to our contingent mode of existence, is therefore a fundamental property of the GOD concept.

4) The common and dogmatic assertion that both the existence and nonexistence of GOD are logically possible is incoherent because it denies an essential property of the GOD concept, i.e. its logically necessary existence.

5) The existence and nonexistence of GOD cannot both be logically possible states of affairs. Either the existence or the nonexistence of GOD is logically necessary. If GOD is logically possible then He logically cannot fail to exist.

6) GOD is logically possible (i.e. conceivable without contradiction).

7) Therefore, it is logically necessary that GOD exists.

D. Argument from Omniscience

1) An essential property of GOD is omniscience, i.e. unsurpassable or infallible awareness of everything that exists.

2) This perfection of knowledge entails that every logically possible state of affairs, in the event of its instantiation, would be infallibly known by GOD.

3) If there are logically possible states of affairs which, if actualized, would be unknowable by GOD, His scope of knowledge, however extensive, would be essentially limited. Thus He could not really be GOD.

4) Suppose the nonexistence of GOD is a logical possibility. Then in the event of the instantiation of that possibility, such a state of affairs would have to be perfectly known by GOD (by definition). This is self-contradictory.

5) The existence and the nonexistence of GOD cannot both be logically possible states of affairs. The definition of omniscience entails that the logical possibility of GOD's existence precludes the logical possibility of His nonexistence. If GOD is logically possible then He logically cannot fail to exist.

6) GOD is logically possible (i.e. conceivable without contradiction).

7) Therefore, it is logically necessary that GOD exists.

E. Argument from Ultimate Creation

1) The definition of GOD entails the supreme conceivable degree of creative agency or influence. This means that GOD can creatively affect everything that exists, and, moreover, must infallibly do so in an ethically ideal manner.

2) As unsurpassable creative agent, GOD must not merely affect every existing state of affairs, but must also be capable of creatively affecting every logically possible state of affairs.

3) Every logically possible state of affairs therefore presupposes GOD as its partial creator or original creative influence.

4) If the nonexistence of GOD is logically possible, this would be, if instantiated, a state of affairs which GOD could neither interact with nor affect creatively. Since GOD is by definition the prime creative agent in all logically possible states of affairs, His nonexistence cannot be one of those logical possibilities.

5) The existence and nonexistence of GOD cannot both be logically possible. The status of GOD as unsurpassable creator entails that the logical possibility of its existence precludes the logical possibility of its nonexistence. If GOD is logically possible then He logically cannot fail to exist.

6) GOD is logically possible (i.e. conceivable without contradiction).

7) Therefore, it is logically necessary that GOD exists.

F. Argument from Possible Worlds

1) The definition of GOD entails that the ontological status of GOD is inextricably bound up with the status of logical possibility, or the set of possible worlds. Philosophers generally assume that GOD's existence and the realm of possible worlds can be treated independently of each other. This assumption fails to grasp the GOD concept and flagrantly begs the question.

2) It is essential to the GOD concept that there is a convergence or coincidence between the abstract existence of GOD and the realm of possible worlds. The supremacy of GOD entails that no possible world can be beyond the knowledge and creative activity of GOD.

3) From the definition of GOD a correlative definition of logical possibility or possible worlds necessarily follows: A possible world is a logically possible cosmic state of affairs (e.g. our universe at this moment), which is perfectly known by GOD as well as entirely subject to the creative agency of GOD.

4) If, as commonly supposed, the existence and nonexistence of GOD are both logically possible, then there are some possible worlds known and created by GOD, and other possible worlds which are independent of the knowledge and creativity of GOD. This is clearly at variance with the definition of GOD.

5) The existence and nonexistence of GOD cannot both be logically possible. If there is even one possible world in which the existence of GOD is instantiated, then it is necessarily instantiated in all possible worlds. Conversely, if there is any possible world in which the nonexistence of GOD is instantiated, then His nonexistence is necessarily instantiated in all possible worlds. Either GOD's existence or its nonexistence is therefore logically necessary, embracing all possible worlds. If GOD is logically possible then He logically cannot fail to exist.

6) GOD is logically possible (i.e. conceivable without contradiction).

7) Therefore, it is logically necessary that GOD exists.

G. The Argument by Alvin Plantinga

Definitions: (a) Maximal excellence - the property of having omniscience, omnipotence and moral perfection with respect to a possible world. (b) Maximal greatness - the property of having maximal excellence in every possible world.

1) There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated.

2) Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

3) Necessarily, a being has maximal excellence in every possible world only if it has omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in every possible world.

4) Maximal excellence is instantiated in every possible world.

5) Therefore, in the actual world there is a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect.

 

[Eireann]

Has anyone else noticed how the creationist argument falls apart at the ultimate point of origin? What I mean is that the Creationist criticizes the evolutionist because they say that the idea that something could come from nothing (such as Big Bang) defies the laws of physics (not to mention laws of reason). They also argue that a thing cannot create itself, that it must BE created by something. Well, that's all fine and good until you get down to the nitty gritty and ask a Creationist, "Well, then what created God?" The inevitable answer: God was not created, God is eternal and has always been. There has been no point at which God has not been. Does anyone besides me notice the conundrum therein: that the Creationist (who rails against evolution and non-biblical origins theories as totally defiant of the laws of physics) then is forced to cite his own theory of origins that even more ultimately defies every law of physics?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by philosophizer
You have been referring to the "structure" of the word "chair." I would describe the structure as the physical formation of the letters and words. Would you agree?

I'm not limiting to mere structure but also sequence, etc....

If so, then the word "chair" is a whole which must be described by its parts. Those parts are letters, which also have parts - lines and curves, which also have parts - ink or pixels, which also have parts, molocules - then atoms - then particles.

But I'm speaking of the language....chair is chair regardless of the pixels, molocules, atoms, etc....

Let me ask you, if "chair" is only "chair", then is "c h a i r" also the same?

*sigh*

chair is chair c h a i r is c h a i r

 

[RogerB]

Does anyone besides me notice the conundrum therein

Nope.

Do you notice that only an atheist thinks of it as a conundrum? I wonder why?

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Freak
I'm not limiting to mere structure but also sequence, etc....

Sequence of what? Structures?

All structures are unique because they each have minute random variations in them. No structure can be absolutely equal to another, even if they are very very similar. So any argument on the absoluteness of structures in relation to other structures cannot be valid.

If, instead, you mean to argue for the sequence of symbols, then you have to aknowledge the meaning behind those symbols. Otherwise, what are you arguing?

But I'm speaking of the language....chair is chair regardless of the pixels, molocules, atoms, etc....

Like I said, you can't argue for the absoluteness of a comparison of similar structures because you cannot separate those structures from the randomness within their parts. If you're talking about symbols, then you can't completely reject their meaning as you have done.

 

[Charismata]

Originally posted by Eireann
Has anyone else noticed how the creationist argument falls apart at the ultimate point of origin? What I mean is that the Creationist criticizes the evolutionist because they say that the idea that something could come from nothing (such as Big Bang) defies the laws of physics (not to mention laws of reason). They also argue that a thing cannot create itself, that it must BE created by something. Well, that's all fine and good until you get down to the nitty gritty and ask a Creationist, "Well, then what created God?" The inevitable answer: God was not created, God is eternal and has always been. There has been no point at which God has not been. Does anyone besides me notice the conundrum therein: that the Creationist (who rails against evolution and non-biblical origins theories as totally defiant of the laws of physics) then is forced to cite his own theory of origins that even more ultimately defies every law of physics?

To which I reply:
Has anyone noticed how non-christians have no understanding of the christian position?

Christians argue that only things that have a beginning need a cause. God is eternal. He has no beginning or end.

Does that violate the laws of physics? No. Again I would encourage the TOL skeptics to review the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

There is no "conundrum".

The skeptic doesn't realize he is arguing against his own straw god argument in lieu of the christian's position.

The skeptic essentially argues this:
"There is only the natural world, therefore God doesn't exist."
"Prove to me God exists."

Christians don't grant the first premise. Christian's argue for the supernatural. They defend that position thru philosophical argumentation.

The idea that there is some contradition in a christian arguing for God to create everything out of nothing is humorous at best.

For skeptics who do not understand the position of christians it is simple.

1)God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end.
2)God created the universe out of nothing by supernatural means.
3)God established the natural laws to govern the natural world.
4)God is not contained nor limited by creation but can operate within His creation.

There is no logical contradiction in those assertions.

Each position theist and atheist alike make an argument from silence. Neither position can be fully "known".

Neither the negative nor positive assertion carry a greater weight philosophically ex hypothesi or by hypothesis. (Just as all coin tosses are not by default "tails" unless observed to be "heads".)

Both positions are asserting a position of knowlege.

Just theists have more sense than to try and prove a negative.
:thumb:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Sequence of what?

*sigh*

If I type clown then the sequence of clown would be clown. Not very difficult to understand.

So any argument on the absoluteness of structures in relation to other structures cannot be valid.

*sigh*

I'm speaking of the absolute reality that chair is chair. It's not spider. Not very difficult to understand.

If, instead, you mean to argue for the sequence of symbols, then you have to aknowledge the meaning behind those symbols. Otherwise, what are you arguing?

*sigh*

The sequence of the absolute reality of what I type---

The philosophy of language is quite simple. If I type chair then the word chair is absolute. It is not spider or anything else for that matter.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth

Originally posted by Hank
I said that because back in the sixties when I was a boy I went to a “training” session on the ark and they were using species as a “kind”. The reason was because at the time a species generally had animals that did not interbreed in the wild. And the instructors believed that calling animals that interbreed a kind would be too much evolution.

I can't speak for what people were doing back in the sixties -- I wasn't born until 1970.

Okay so I’ll take it that you don’t consider animals that have evolved to the point of being sexually incompatible to be macroevolution. I would point out that that is the example that is used when defined in the dictionary though.

It's not a very good definition if you ask me. Irish wolfhounds and chihuahuas are sexually incompatible due to mechanical problems, but they're the exact same genus, species, and subspecies (Canis lupus familiaris). I wouldn't call that macro-evolution. Would you?

Yes I saw that and even quoted it. However I was hoping for something a little more specific. Would you be comfortable with the following statements?:

1. Animals that do not interbreed in the wild are more divergent than those that do.

Divergent from what? You'll need to be more specific. Plus, some animals that don't seem to interbreed in the wild do interbreed in captivity (lions and tigers, for instance).

2. Animals that will interbreed but produce sterile offspring are more divergent than those that do not produce sterile offspring.

You mean like horses and donkeys producing mules?

3. Animals that can not produce offspring are more divergent than those that produce sterile offspring.

Animals that cannot produce offspring are doomed to go extinct. I can't think of any animals that can't reproduce -- can you?

Also do you think the comparison of genetics between animals is a satisfactory way of determining the relationship of animals? If so, is there a number that you would accept for a “kind” such as 1% or 2%, etc. divergence?

Well, considering that they've only sequenced four animal genomes so far, we might have a bit of a wait on our hands before we can do any serious comparisons. Are you aware that they haven't yet finished sequencing the chimpanzee genome? Of course, that doesn't stop them from claiming less than 1% difference between chimpanzees and man, so you have to take some of what they say with a grain of salt.

Is there some standard that you could give for your definition of macroevolution?

I don't believe in macro-evolution.

Okay lets look at that. The lamb-chop types would have had to at least have enough time to reproduce so they wouldn’t be eliminated by the carnivores. Did Noah hold back the carnivores for a year or so and if so what did they eat?

Noah took food on board the ark, plus he took seven of every clean animal -- presumably to breed for food.

That was my point. That’s a long way to walk for say sloths who travel very slowly. When did they find time to reproduce or raise young if they were on the road all the time?

We figure that's how humans got there, and it's not unreasonable to assume that many animals made it that way as well. Maybe humans brought sloths with them. All we can do is speculate on the stuff we don't know.

Because the flood was about 4000 years ago and I assumed by 2000 years ago they were becoming established so that we have what we do today. What number would you give?

For how long it took them to get here? I have no idea, but I don't think it was 2,000 years.

See my comment about the sloths above.

I saw it.

Okay the let me put it another way. Why didn’t any placenta type animals go to Australia?

They did. Dingoes are placental mammals.

Well it is an island. How do you think they got there?

I don't think they swam. So is that your answer -- they swam there?

But you didn’t answer my question. Do you think going from a wolf to a fox in a couple thousand years or less is a lot of evolution?

But I don't think wolves evolved into foxes. I think they probably have a common ancestor which was some kind of canine, but I would only consider that to be micro-evolution.

Would you mind giving me your beliefs about the following by picking one and if you pick something else, give an explanation.

1. All the cat-kind animals you listed were created before the flood, and Noah just took one pair of them. Then evolution took over and all the cat-kinds evolved.

2. One cat-kind of animal was created and evolved into all the different cat-kinds during the first 2000 years and Noah just took one cat-kind. Then the cat-kinds evolved again.

3. Only one cat-kind of animal was created and never changed over the first 2000 years. Noah took a pair of those and after the flood evolution took over and all the cat-kinds evolved.

4. Something else.

Number 3 is close to what I believe may have happened, but I wouldn't say that no variation occured before the flood.

Do you believe that the earth rotates around the sun and if so, why? This a serious question and I’m not being sarcastic, just requesting an answer.

No, it rotates about its axis. It revolves around the sun.

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Eireann
Has anyone else noticed how the creationist argument falls apart at the ultimate point of origin? What I mean is that the Creationist criticizes the evolutionist because they say that the idea that something could come from nothing (such as Big Bang) defies the laws of physics (not to mention laws of reason). They also argue that a thing cannot create itself, that it must BE created by something. Well, that's all fine and good until you get down to the nitty gritty and ask a Creationist, "Well, then what created God?" The inevitable answer: God was not created, God is eternal and has always been. There has been no point at which God has not been. Does anyone besides me notice the conundrum therein: that the Creationist (who rails against evolution and non-biblical origins theories as totally defiant of the laws of physics) then is forced to cite his own theory of origins that even more ultimately defies every law of physics?

Eireann, I am not sure you get the concept here.

Matter and energy ALWAYS (without exception) conform to natural laws.

However, a being - a supernatural being - by definition would not necessarily conform to these natural laws that's why we call it supernatural and not natural.

There is simply no logical reason whatsoever to make the claim a supernatural entity must conform to natural laws.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
Nope.

Do you notice that only an atheist thinks of it as a conundrum? I wonder why?

Apparently not, since I'm not an atheist. Yet I see the conundrum. Any person who is capable of logical thought can see the conundrum.

 

[philosophizer]

Freak,
First, I agree with you that there are absolutes.
Second, I agree with you that "chair" is not "spider."

But sequence depends on either:
1) a physical series of structures, or
2) a perceptual series of symbols.

What other ways can one describe a sequence?

No matter how similar they are, two sequences defined in terms of a physical series of structures cannot be absolutely equated to each other.

Yet, if you define your sequence in terms of a perceptual series of symbols, you must take into account the meaning of these symbols or your argument becomes completely empty.

"chair" is absolutely not "spider". We agree on this. But you cannot say that "chair" absolutely is "chair". Not unless you want to bring symbolism and meaning into the argument.

 

[Charismata]

Originally posted by Eireann
Apparently not, since I'm not an atheist. Yet I see the conundrum. Any person who is capable of logical thought can see the conundrum.

Eireann, christians are not pantheists. If you think creation is all that there is and that creation in itself is your definition of "god" then I understand why you think it to be a contradiction.

If this is not your position then by all means show us the syllogism on why christians hold a self-contradictory position.

Please, I am most interested in seeing your capacity for "logical thought".

 

[Stratnerd]

> All we can do is speculate on the stuff we don't know.

obviously

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Freak,
First, I agree with you that there are absolutes.
Second, I agree with you that "chair" is not "spider."

Great.

What other ways can one describe a sequence?

chair is chair the sequence is as follows-->there is c first then h and so forth.

"chair" is absolutely not "spider".

Exactly my point. I think you may have gotten it!!!! Praise God! Notice the word you used? Absolutely--you're right! Chair is in a absolute sense not Spider. Hence, chair must be chair.

We agree on this.

Great!

But you cannot say that "chair" absolutely is "chair".

So, it's subjective? chair may not be chair?