Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHere's for starters:
Whether you agree with (1) through (4) doesn't require any cooperation on my part. If you'd like to assume Genesis is correct in order to figure out how to answer the question, feel free.
I don't agree that (4) was a part of the original design.
I believe that (4) came into being because of sin and the fall of man and is thus not a part of the original design.
Originally posted by HalitoseExcellent.
[b]Let us get back on track. Do you agree with (1) through (4)?
Yes.[/b]
Do you agree with this:
5) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4), such changes depend on an intelligent design, and the resulting sort of animal is a product of intelligent design.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes.
Excellent.
Do you agree with this:
5) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4), such changes depend on an intelligent design, and the resulting sort of animal is a product of intelligent design.
With some reservations.
Originally posted by dj2beckerInteresting. So, you are saying that genetic mutations would not occur if Adam and Eve had never sinned?
Here's for starters:
I don't agree that (4) was a part of the original design.
I believe that (4) came into being because of sin and the fall of man and is thus not a part of the original design.
Do you suppose God redesigned their DNA after the fall, so that it was of a different nature, namely, of a nature that allowed mutations? Or do you suppose the nature of our DNA is just like theirs, but that we observe mutations because God allows them to happen while without sin he would have prevented them from happening?
Originally posted by HalitoseYou are skeptical about the truth of the antecedant of (5)? Do you understand that if the antecedant is false - that is, if no such changes are exhibited - then (5) must be true, for any implication with a false antecedant is true.
The one I voiced earlier: the observability of (5).
In light of this, I don't understand your reservation in accepting the truth of (5). Either such changes don't occur, and thus (5) is true, or they do occur and in those cases they are the product of intelligent design and not "random chance", and thus (5) is true.
To say that (5) is false is to say that such changes do occur and that they are not the product of intelligent design. If you reject this, then you hold that (5) is true.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes. I am not sure, but I would imagine that there were probably alterations made to their original DNA, because of the curse.
Interesting. So, you are saying that genetic mutations would not occur if Adam and Eve had never sinned?
Do you suppose God redesigned their DNA after the fall, so that it was of a different nature, namely, of a nature that allowed mutations? Or do you suppose the nature of our DNA is just like theirs, but that we observe mutations because God allows them to happen while without sin he would have prevented them from happening?
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo, you would say that God had an original design, and then he had another design. (I guess man's sin necessitated the corresponding change in all animal DNA since all animals exhibit genetic mutation.) In that case, please consider my question as pertaining to the post-fall, not the pre-fall, designs, and answer accordingly.
Yes. I am not sure, but I would imagine that there were probably alterations made to their original DNA, because of the curse.
Are (1) through (4) true, substituting "redesign" (as a result of the fall) for "design" where you see fit.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFair enough. You get an unreserved, hypothetical, yes for (5).
You are skeptical about the truth of the antecedant of (5)? Do you understand that if the antecedant is false - that is, if no such changes are exhibited - then (5) must be true, for any implication with a false antecedant is true.
In light of this, I don't understand your reservation in accepting the truth of (5). Either such changes don't oc ...[text shortened]... ]not[/i] the product of intelligent design. If you reject this, then you hold that (5) is true.
Originally posted by HalitoseThere is nothing hypothetical in play, for nothing is being assumed.
Fair enough. You get an unreserved, hypothetical, yes for (5).
Do you believe (5) is true, or do you require some hypothetical, which we have not discussed, to be true in order to believe that (5) is true?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm assuming that (5) has indeed happened. As stated before, I have found the proof for (5) less than compelling.
There is nothing hypothetical in play, for nothing is being assumed.
Do you believe (5) is true, or do you require some hypothetical, which we have not discussed, to be true in order to believe that (5) is true?
Originally posted by HalitoseYou are confused between (5), which is an implication - not something that can happen or be observed - and the antecedent of (5) - in this case, something that can happen or be observed. Let me know when you resolve this confusion and we will continue.
I'm assuming that (5) has indeed happened. As stated before, I have found the proof for (5) less than compelling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conditional
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMy apologies.
There is nothing hypothetical in play, for nothing is being assumed.
Do you believe (5) is true, or do you require some hypothetical, which we have not discussed, to be true in order to believe that (5) is true?
I've reread (5), you get a resounding yes.