Water from space

@kellyjay said
Yea, not an answer others believe this so I do without being able to give a reason why that is simply I believe because the herd told me too.

No, you misunderstand. It is not a case of 'others believe this', so I believe this. It is a case of, others have 'shown this to be true' through verifiable study and exploration. Take, for example, the television. On my own I would have no idea of how it works or how to build one, and yet there it sits in my living room. It's existence there is a result of the cumulative knowledge and discovery of far greater minds than my own. I also didn't have to be there in person when the television was invented to have knowledge of it or in order to accept its reality.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Please don't bore me with pretentiously daft questions.

When someone speaks of things as 'actual events', such as humanity coming into existence with the creation of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, then that is a truth claim that I will hold up to scientific scrutiny. (As it flies in the face of what we know of human evolution).

If you cannot answer a question such as what you mean by "truth" then it's not obvious to me you have any epistemological basis for your claim that the Biblical literalists are wrong in their notion that the Adam and Eve story "flies in the face of evolutionary theory". Incidentally, there are two creation stories in Genesis:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:27 AKJV

I see nothing there that contradicts evolutionary theory.

@deepthought said
If you cannot answer a question such as what you mean by "truth" then it's not obvious to me you have any epistemological basis for your claim that the Biblical literalists are wrong in their notion that the Adam and Eve story "flies in the face of evolutionary theory". Incidentally, there are two creation stories in Genesis:

27 So God created man in his own ...[text shortened]... e them.

Genesis 1:27 AKJV

I see nothing there that contradicts evolutionary theory.

I repeat, when someone speaks of things as 'actual events', such as humanity coming into existence with the creation of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, then that is a truth claim that I will hold up to scientific scrutiny.

I class claims of 'actual events' as truth claims. If someone instead takes the non-literalist view, then fair enough.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I repeat, when someone speaks of things as 'actual events', such as humanity coming into existence with the creation of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, then that is a truth claim that I will hold up to scientific scrutiny.

I class claims of 'actual events' as truth claims. If someone instead takes the non-literalist view, then fair enough.

How do you know that scientific truth claims are true?

Interestingly the original meaning of true comes from carpentry and before he started preaching Jesus is said to have been a carpenter.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I repeat, when someone speaks of things as 'actual events', such as humanity coming into existence with the creation of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, then that is a truth claim that I will hold up to scientific scrutiny.

I class claims of 'actual events' as truth claims. If someone instead takes the non-literalist view, then fair enough.

Well the creation story about life's beginning are supernatural events, and you are here claiming it can be shown to be a natural event. I've asked a few points that if it were a natural event it should be very clearly understood. Your response, smart people don't believe it doesn't really inspire me. It almost seems that you have any idea how to address my questions.

If we are going to say Adam and Eve must be looked at as if were NOT a supernatural event we, must skip past abiogenesis ignoring all of it's issues all the way to, when life I assume was all asexual just before it was about to change by an undirected process. Some how an asexual life will manage to split into male and female sexes! (I don't believe gender was a real issue back then) After that split into sexes those lives still thrive!

I'm assuming you must have a remarkable mountain of scientific evidence that backs this up in an iron clad way. I saw something not to long ago not sure if this is really true or not, I do have some very strong doubts, oh well here we go, "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof" so your claim I assume has extraordinary proof it did occur.

I only have a couple of questions that were not answered earlier. I'm not sure if you jumped on the shoulders of giants before or after I asked these.

"Are you suggesting that evolution had a single sex creature from which everything else came, and that through evolution managed to split into two different compatible sexes, AND THEN at the very start of this split, both sexes knew what to do for sex to continue the species, they didn't have to figure it out, and they wanted to as well? (Please note: the knowing how, wanting to, are also difficult questions! They would not have had either instinct or history to draw on)

How did all life in two sexes manage to stay compatible throughout all time? Are you asking me to buy into a series of miracles over time with each mutation affecting the males, and keeping the female compatible with each generation.

It is possible I'm not describing your view on how this occurred over and over again, please show me the proper argument we should be looking at instead of the one I presented just now."

@kellyjay said
Well the creation story about life's beginning are supernatural events, and you are here claiming it can be shown to be a natural event. I've asked a few points that if it were a natural event it should be very clearly understood. Your response, smart people don't believe it doesn't really inspire me. It almost seems that you have any idea how to address my questions.

If ...[text shortened]... please show me the proper argument we should be looking at instead of the one I presented just now."

Living creatures must reproduce or their species becomes extinct. So if a species does not have the instinct to reproduce it goes extinct.
Go read some real scientific studies of the differences between asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction. Gene diversity and increased survivability.
Here is the advice you will follow : Stick a finger in each ear really snugly and loudly say Lalalalalalalala.
Evolution is science fact. Bet you got your kids vaccinated.
If anyone could prove the Earth is 6,000 years old they would become enormously rich, win a Nobel Prize, and become the most famous scientist in history. Has that happened yet ??

@deepthought said
How do you know that scientific truth claims are true?

Interestingly the original meaning of true comes from carpentry and before he started preaching Jesus is said to have been a carpenter.

Are you not familiar with the scientific process ??
Look it up and learn.
Wow, Jesus was a carpenter. I guess that means everything he is claimed to have said is true, lol.

@caissad4 said
Living creatures must reproduce or their species becomes extinct. So if a species does not have the instinct to reproduce it goes extinct.
Go read some real scientific studies of the differences between asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction. Gene diversity and increased survivability.
Here is the advice you will follow : Stick a finger in each ear really snugly and ...[text shortened]... y rich, win a Nobel Prize, and become the most famous scientist in history. Has that happened yet ??

Really, and I get that out of scripture too by the way.
Read the Bible!

Why don't you answer my questions?

@deepthought said
How do you know that scientific truth claims are true?

Interestingly the original meaning of true comes from carpentry and before he started preaching Jesus is said to have been a carpenter.

Define interestingly?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Define interestingly?

I find it interesting.

@deepthought said
How do you know that scientific truth claims are true?

Interestingly the original meaning of true comes from carpentry and before he started preaching Jesus is said to have been a carpenter.

Apologies. Lack of sleep = lack of patience.

Okay, various sources give the original meaning of true/truth as ultimately deriving from the postulated Proto-Indo-European root *deru-, meaning “be firm, solid, steadfast.” - Now I know 'true' can be used in regards to carpentry but where are you getting this original meaning stuff?

Secondly, was Jesus a carpenter? - Mark 6:2-3 may have been used to imply that, 'however, the chosen translation from the Greek word “tecton” to mean “carpenter” is a bit of a mistranslation. In fact, “tecton” (in Mark) or “tekton” (in Mathew) is more aptly translated into a word describing a “contractor”; specifically, contracting as a “builder” or “handyman”. Not necessarily having anything to do with wood in most of the jobs he likely took.

He was basically a “Mr. Fix it”. You had something that needed mended/fixed, designed, or built and he was the guy to call. And note, this isn’t just referring to small jobs such as repairing a leaky roof or the like, though this type of thing would have likely been a part of what he did when bigger business was slow; it also refers to such things as designing and building bridges, stone temples, etc. So perhaps by today’s notion of the profession, he’d more likely be called an “engineer”.


http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/jesus-wasnt-really-a-carpenter/

@caissad4 said
Are you not familiar with the scientific process ??
Look it up and learn.
Wow, Jesus was a carpenter. I guess that means everything he is claimed to have said is true, lol.

Yes, but scientific theories are falsified and never proven. They're either a good or bad description rather than true or false.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Apologies. Lack of sleep = lack of patience.

Okay, various sources give the original meaning of true/truth as ultimately deriving from the postulated Proto-Indo-European root *deru-, meaning “be firm, solid, steadfast.” - Now I know 'true' can be used in regards to carpentry but where are you getting this original meaning stuff?

Secondly, was Jesus a carpenter? ...[text shortened]... an “engineer”.


http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/jesus-wasnt-really-a-carpenter/

The carpentry thing was from memory. I wonder about a parallel with Ptah, the Egyptian god of Craftsmen. The etymology of true you gave is fine for my purposes though, the point being that if something is true one can rely on it. Which means that a correspondence type truth - what one might call literally true - isn't entirely necessary with religion. If believing in the literal truth of the Bible helps Kelly Jay through his life then I don't see that it makes too much difference whether God exists in the way matter does or not, or whether the Genesis story is a mythological story or not. The problem comes when they insist on trying to alter public policy with regard to teaching creationism as a scientific theory in biology lessons. The stories are unreliable for that purpose, it's just that that's more a matter for the Debates forum than the Spirituality forum.

Apology accepted, I've been pretty short with someone over in the Science forum myself recently.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
No, you misunderstand. It is not a case of 'others believe this', so I believe this. It is a case of, others have 'shown this to be true' through verifiable study and exploration. Take, for example, the television. On my own I would have no idea of how it works or how to build one, and yet there it sits in my living room. It's existence there is a result of the cumula ...[text shortened]... n person when the television was invented to have knowledge of it or in order to accept its reality.

Well if they have shown it to be true, if they actually did that, it should be repeatable. So, show me!

@kellyjay said
Well if they have shown it to be true, if they actually did that, it should be repeatable. So, show me!

If what you say about God creating the world is true, then that too (by your reasoning) should be repeatable. Show me sir. Create me a world!

And yes, I know you are not God. But then neither am I the universe or the propagator of evolution. Evidencing something is not always reliant on replication, but on observation and discovery.