Freethought & Rationalism Archive

VoxRat · 07-08-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Another test will say something else later, I'm sure.

I'm sure you are. We afdave-watchers are familiar with that kind of scientific prediction: "I predict that eventually some science will prove me right".

In the meantime, you'll ignore the mountains of consilient evidence to the contrary.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-08-2007, 10:46 AM

The Lamarckism tangent has been split here to E/C.

Dtc, Moderator, BC&H

Elijah · 07-08-2007, 10:47 AM

Mod moved.

someotherguy · 07-08-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by someotherguy

Another test will say something else later, I'm sure.

Perhaps, but I highly doubt that either of us are qualified to speculate on the chances of that happening. Regardless, for the moment at least, your Lamarckian claims remain unsupported.

Sorry added a link above.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you added the link while I was making my post, so I edited out what I wrote after I read your revised post.

That New Scientist article is pretty interesting, by the way. I'm not sure that it's terribly relevant wrt your view on human intelligence, but definitely interesting nonetheless.

Smullyan-esque · 07-08-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Of course I believe that myths exist. It is often quite an easy decision. "Alice in Wonderland" for example was never intended by the author to be anything other than a work of fantasy. But Genesis, on the other hand, is a different story. Genesis bears many marks of being intended by the authors to be sober history. INTENT of the author is therefore important. Steven Boyd of the ICR RATE Team wrote a "Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3" in 2005 and came to the overwhelming conclusion that this portion, at least, was intended to be historical. There are also evidences of historical intent throughout the rest of Genesis. See my book review of “Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis.”

Good job missing the point, afdave. The question was about myths vs. historical records. Not fiction vs. historical records.

To help you focus your mind, perhaps you should answer one of these more specific questions:

1) Why do you believe in the talking snake of Genesis, but not the gods of the Illiad?

2) Why do you believe the ages of the patriarchs of Josephus, but not the flying snakes of Josephus (the same author!!)

Please, when you answer one of these questions, also indicate that you DO understand the difference between "myth" and "fiction".

Smullyan-esque · 07-08-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Secondly, evolutionists can write as many "just-so" stories as they want to about supposed flagellar evolution. But until they can demonstrate it, it's no better than "Alice in Wonderland."

Evolutionists invoke far more magic than Creationists when you actually examine their claims in detail.

Well, afdave, if that is how you think, I would assume that you don't agree with the "Fusion model of the Sun's energy", right? I mean, we have never been able to demonstrate that fusion is actually happening in the Sun. All we have is indirect evidence. So, until we can build an actual star in a lab, we won't know for sure, will we? I mean, how can we know that gravity can really cause enough pressure to make fusion happen, if we don't do the experiment?

Smullyan-esque · 07-08-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

Loath as I am to extend the derail, I must comment that I find the above post deeply ironic given that (a) it was dave who introduced the feathered dinosaurs / flagella / pond scum derails in the first place and (b) the post that this was in response to contains a list of feathered dinosaur genera.

Mentioning feathered dinos in a list so as to compare their myth/non-myth status to that of long lived patriarchs is more on-topic than debating feathered dinos.

You DID notice that those were links in the post, right afdave? It wasn't just a list. It was a starting point for you to do some work and learn about the topic.

Oh, duh.

Silly me.

"... work..." That explains it.

Y.B · 07-08-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Mentioning feathered dinos in a list so as to compare their myth/non-myth status to that of long lived patriarchs is more on-topic than debating feathered dinos.

You DID notice that those were links in the post, right afdave? It wasn't just a list. It was a starting point for you to do some work and learn about the topic.

Oh, duh.

Silly me.

"... work..." That explains it.

I think Dave meant his own list of "myth/non-myth status" things, where he mentioned feathered dinos as "myth". Here on IIDB, claiming real things as myth won't fly, though, unlike some of the feathered dinos did.

Sauron · 07-08-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Yes. Some life only one year.

No.

What species please?

Any species.

Sauron · 07-08-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

HEAR HEAR! Finally ... a professional

Uh, no. Roger is not a professional. Nor has he been able to give us the name of any professionals who agree with him.

Quote:

states very eloquently

Evasiveness is not eloquence.

Quote:

what should be obvious,

The reason it's not obvious is because it's not correct.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2007, 10:46 AM	#232
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The Lamarckism tangent has been split here to E/C. Dtc, Moderator, BC&H

07-08-2007, 10:47 AM	#233
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	Mod moved.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.