06 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseVery good.
My apologies.
I've reread (5), you get a resounding yes.
Do you agree with this:
6) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and that new species is a product of intelligent design.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes
Very good.
Do you agree with this:
6) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and that new species is a product of intelligent design.
06 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes, with reservations.
Good.
Do you agree with this:
7) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in man, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and man is a product of intelligent design.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf the God depicted in the OT were to be the driving force behind this, it would not be neccessary as he would already have created man and animals seperately.
Good.
Do you agree with this:
7) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in man, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and man is a product of intelligent design.
06 Oct 05
8 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseYou still do not understand how the truth of an implication is evaluated. If its antecedent is false - which you seem to think is the case - then the implication itself is true. Do you follow, and do you accept that (7) is true?
Logically, yes. But I contend that process (2) through (4) doesn't allow for speciation beyond a kind, which I guess would be comparible to the biological classification of an order.
The only way you can hold that (7) is false is if you actually believe that man did result from some process that used (2) through (4), and that man's emergence does not entail intelligent design. I don't think you believe both of these things, and thus I think you must believe that (7) is true.
Additonally, (7) follows directly from (6). You can't rationally believe (6) and not (7).
Think it over. I'll be back in an hour. We're quite near the end. There should be only two or three steps left, and you need not fear the conclusion. I promise you this: it won't be anything at all like "Therefore, man evolved from a lower species." In fact, I expect you will be quite comfortable and pleased with it.
Dr. S
P.S. If you're really hung up on (7) but you still accept (6), I'll withdraw (7) from consideration. It's really not a necessary premise of my argument.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYour logic is impeccable as always Dr. I will have to backtrack to (6).
You still do not understand how the truth of an implication is evaluated. If its antecedent is false - which you seem to think is the case - then the implication itself is true. Do you follow, and do you accept that (7) is true?
The only way you can hold that (7) is false is if you actually believe that man did result from some process th ...[text shortened]... ar the end. There should be only two or three steps left, and you need not fear the conclusion.
6) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and that new species is a product of intelligent design.
My acceptance of (6) is that (6) would be limited to a biological suborder.
06 Oct 05
3 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseDo you agree that this is an impossible occurance:
Your logic is impeccable as always Dr. I will have to backtrack to (6).
6) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and that new species is a product of intelligent design.
My acceptance of (6) is that (6) would be limited to a biological suborder.
"a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species"
If you do, then you find that the antecedent of (6) must be false, and thus you must find (6) itself to be true.
I'll be back shortly. Don't abandon this thread - I'm trying to give you a gift, but I will only give it on the condition that you understand it.
06 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles(6) I'm fine with.
Do you agree that this is an impossible occurance:
"a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species"
If you do, then you find that the antecedent of (6) must be false, and thus you must find (6) itself to be true.
I'll be back shortly. Don't abandon this thread - I'm trying to give you a gift, but I will only give it on the condition that you understand it.
(7) is the one I'm hung up on.
06 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseForget (7) then.
(6) I'm fine with.
(7) is the one I'm hung up on.
Do you agree with this:
(8) The theory of evolution finds that there exists an animal whose
lineage has exhibited changes via a process that makes use of (2)
through (4), having resulted in a new species.