30 Jun 13
On another note, I believe this is something worth considering:
If we amend the phrase If anything is possible... and have it begin with Given what we know..., then I believe that places the phrase in a more realistic light. I don't know anyone who doesn't believe science is a work in progress, so it's reasonable to assume Given what we know is good for contextual reference.
In other words, given what we knew 200 years ago, something might have been possible that is not possible given what we know today. And the converse would also be true. Given what we knew 200 years ago something would not be possible that is possible given what we know today.
So here is what my admendment to that phrase would look like:
Given what we know, if something is possible, then no matter how remote the possibility, given enough time it will happen.
This puts the If something is possible part of that phrase in a more realistic light, and doesn't assume something is possible simply because someone says it is. It's presumptuous to assume something is possible, and then follow it with reasoning that doesn't bother to question whether it's really a possibility or not. It's also presumptuous to believe science has now reached a point where nothing new will be discovered.
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by EladarNo, I don't recall all my posts. So yes, God was mentioned, but after you started making claims about science and abiogenesis and it was introduced by me.
Do you recall what you post?
Check out what you call point 6 in your description of infallable logic.
And I said nothing about infallible logic in that post, I merely explained why I think abiogenesis took place and why i think your characterization of it as 'belief by faith' is unwarranted.
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk, as long as we have it clear that you don't recall your own posts, lol. 😀
No, I don't recall all my posts. So yes, God was mentioned, but after you started making claims about science and abiogenesis and it was introduced by me.
And I said nothing about infallible logic in that post, I merely explained why I think abiogenesis took place and why i think your characterization of it as 'belief by faith' is unwarranted.
No, you didn't just say why you believe it, you claimed that it is an actual fact. It is not simply a leap of faith that you have taken. You reject that your belief in abiogenesis is simply faith. You believe that your belief is in an actual fact.
If you have changed that point of view, then just say so. If you later forget that you changed your point of view, I'll remind you. 😀
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by EladarLuckily, I don't consider that a failing on my part.
Ok, as long as we have it clear that you don't recall your own posts, lol. 😀
No, you didn't just say why you believe it, you claimed that it is an actual fact.
Correct, and I explained why.
It is not simply a leap of faith that you have taken. You reject that your belief in abiogenesis is simply faith.
Correct.
You believe that your belief is in an actual fact.
Now you are starting to stretch it. Do you believe your belief in gravity is an actual fact? Is your belief different from mine? If so, how?
Do you characterize your belief in gravity as 'faith'? If not, why not?
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, we have faith that our belief in gravity is a true fact and will remain a true fact, because of all the observable data and it is logical, even though we do not completely understand it.
Luckily, I don't consider that a failing on my part.
[b]No, you didn't just say why you believe it, you claimed that it is an actual fact.
Correct, and I explained why.
It is not simply a leap of faith that you have taken. You reject that your belief in abiogenesis is simply faith.
Correct.
You believe that your belief is in an ...[text shortened]... m mine? If so, how?
Do you characterize your belief in gravity as 'faith'? If not, why not?
We do not have faith that evilution is a true fact, because man has never observed one kind of creater turn into another kind and it is not logical. And man has never observed a monkey turn into a human. Therefore, the observable data and the illogic of it leads us to have faith in our belief that evilution is false.
The Instructor
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, we have faith that our belief in gravity is a true fact and will remain a true fact, because of all the observable data and it is logical, even though we do not completely understand it.
We do not have faith that evilution is a true fact, because man has never observed one kind of creater turn into another kind and it is not logical. And man has nev ...[text shortened]... he illogic of it leads us to have faith in our belief that evilution is false.
The Instructor
Yes, we have faith that our belief in gravity is a true fact and will remain a true fact, because of all the observable data and it is logical, even though we do not completely understand it.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If we believe gravity exists on the bases of observable data and logical then that cannot be faith by the definition of faith.
And ,providing we have sufficient evidence of the existence of something, “not completely understand” would not mean requiring faith to believe it exists.
And man has never observed a monkey turn into a human.
Straw man. That is not how evolution works. A current species cannot evolve into another current species but rather only yet another species because each time macroevolution happens it would surely happen differently. The same species cannot credibly evolve twice.
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyThat is why I believe that macroevolution (evilution) is not credible.Yes, we have faith that our belief in gravity is a true fact and will remain a true fact, because of all the observable data and it is logical, even though we do not completely understand it.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If we believe gravity exists on the bases of observable data and logical then that cannot be faith by the definition ...[text shortened]... ution happens it would surely happen differently. The same species cannot credibly evolve twice.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsagain, you make no sense whatsoever. How is the same species not being credibly able to evolve twice into existence equate with a species not being able to evolve from a different species?
That is why I believe that macroevolution (evilution) is not credible.
The Instructor
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are genetic mechanisms to enforce speciation. Your intelligent designer is apparently bright enough to use natural selection to make new species for him(*). Even if you are right about creation happening 6000 years ago, I think your position against Darwin's theory of Origin of Species is untenable as far as novel species are concerned.
That is why I believe that macroevolution (evilution) is not credible.
The Instructor
(*) No reason God shouldn't be a she, but most female gods that I've heard of are part of a pantheon. I'm not aware of a mono-theism which has a female persona god. In pantheons the creator god is usually either male, or there's some sort of story where the sky-god (e.g. Anu) impregnates the nature-godess (Ninhursag).
01 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThats the funny thing about young earth creationists. They have to explain how all the species we see today are descended from the animals on the ark. Even getting the various human races and the diversity in the human gene pool suggests highly accelerated evolution compared to what science suggests.
Even if you are right about creation happening 6000 years ago, I think your position against Darwin's theory of Origin of Species is untenable as far as novel species are concerned.
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadNoah only had to take a male and female dog to get all the varieties of dogs. Same thing about cats. There are different varieties of cats, but they are all still cats and never become dogs. Do you get that? Or is that too much for your pea brain.
Thats the funny thing about young earth creationists. They have to explain how all the species we see today are descended from the animals on the ark. Even getting the various human races and the diversity in the human gene pool suggests highly accelerated evolution compared to what science suggests.
The Instructor
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo all the varieties of cats evolved in the last 4000 years or so? My point is that you believe in very much accelerated evolution compared to what science suggests is possible.
Noah only had to take a male and female dog to get all the varieties of dogs. Same thing about cats. There are different varieties of cats, but they are all still cats and never become dogs. Do you get that? Or is that too much for your pea brain.
The Instructor
For example, studies of the human genome suggest a common male ancestor and a common female ancestor hundreds of thousands of years ago. This is in part based on the knowledge of how fast mutations occur. It must also be noted that these are common ancestors not single ancestors, so there is more genetic diversity than would be expected for single ancestors.
So, if the Noah story is true, then you must believe that mutation occurred in the past at a much faster rate. This is interesting in that most of the time you argue the opposite ie that useful mutations are not sufficient to explain speciation.
I must also point out that 'cat' is actually a very vague term and that you used it intentionally because you don't want to specify whether you are claiming lions and lynx's are cats, or whether you are merely talking about the common housecat. You don't want to be specific because I could probably find an example that would prove you wrong.
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said nothing about mutations and I don't know exactly what Noah took on the ark in terms we know today. I was just using that as a hypothetical example. We know that man breeded dogs, as well as cats, to produce many varieties. So that had nothing to do with evolution either, as far as I can see.
So all the varieties of cats evolved in the last 4000 years or so? My point is that you believe in very much accelerated evolution compared to what science suggests is possible.
For example, studies of the human genome suggest a common male ancestor and a common female ancestor hundreds of thousands of years ago. This is in part based on the knowledge ...[text shortened]... 't want to be specific because I could probably find an example that would prove you wrong.
The Instructor
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou said nothing about it being hypothetical. You stated it as fact. It makes no sense whatsoever when stated as a hypothetical. Do you even know what hypothetical means?
I was just using that as a hypothetical example.
We know that man breeded dogs, as well as cats, to produce many varieties. So that had nothing to do with evolution either, as far as I can see.
Breeding is also evolution.
So do you think Noah had both wolves and dogs, or just one? What about dingos, or coyotes?
Nope, it was just a hypothetical and you have no idea what Noah had on the ark and you just make it up as you go along.
Maybe Noah only had cats, and man bred dogs from cats. How would you know?