Ed

I am sure someone has tried it, at least mixing of the sperm and eggs in the lab. And if it had produced anything like an embryo it would have been front page news.

Quote:

jtb: Also, please cite examples of successful wolf/chihuahua crossbreeding. Dogs are undergoing speciation, wolf/huskies don't prove that wolf/chihuahuas can exist.

The only thing that prevents wolf/chihuahua crossbreeding is mechanical. In vitro fertilization would be quite easy.

Quote:

Ed: Pasteur's experiment is not adequate to produce life from non-life because NO non-living matter is adequate to produce life. jtb: Prove it.

I am not claiming I can prove it with absolute certainty, but most of the evidence is against such a thing happening.

Quote:

Ed: No, because if there is no ultimate objective propositional communication that our propositional communication is based upon then all propositional communication is just the subjective making of sounds that are ultimately meaningless. jtb: One word: EVOLUTION.

If atheistic evolution is true then we are just making sounds that produce certain stimuli in our fellow humans. We are not communicating any objective truth. Because there is not an ultimate objective basis upon which propositional communication is founded.

Quote:

Ed: No, the primary reason for redating Daniel is philosophical not any real textual evidence. Most biblical scholars like most modern scientists, conduct their studies with the assumption of naturalism thereby automatically ruling out any possibility of supernatural prediction. There is textual evidence that it was written much earlier than 168 BC. jtb: Prove it.

See my post to lpetrich above.

Quote:

jtb: You DO realize that apocalyptic literature was written in an "old" style to make it sound more impressive? No, of course you don't.

Irrelevant, because so are actual ancient documents.

Quote:

jtb: No competent Biblical scholars are inerrantists. NONE. Ed: Your statement is based on a presumption of the philosophy of naturalism not based on any real competency test. jtb: No, it's based on the fact that the Bible is riddled with historical errors that any competent Biblical scholar would know about.

Prove it.

lpetrich

Ed:
If atheistic evolution is true then we are just making sounds that produce certain stimuli in our fellow humans. We are not communicating any objective truth. Because there is not an ultimate objective basis upon which propositional communication is founded.

I wonder what Ed is implying -- that mind is due to some special mind-stuff? This question is totally independent of the existence of deities.

"Atheistic evolution" could have some way of generating or capturing mind-stuff.

Evolution by divine direction need not implant mind-stuff. And special creation by a deity need not involve the implanting of mind-stuff, either.

So, Ed, you have used the fallacy of limited alternatives, a fallacy also present in Pascal's Wager and Josh McDowell's Trilemma (Lunatic, Liar, Lord)

Never mind that there is zero evidence for the existence of some special mind-stuff. Computer chips don't have mind-stuff as one of their ingredients, at least not the last time I checked.

jtb: No, it's based on the fact that the Bible is riddled with historical errors that any competent Biblical scholar would know about.

Prove it.

II's library has a whole section on Biblical errancy. And I'm now reading a book called The Bible Unearthed. So where shall we begin?

Ed

I have not denied that God is responsible indirectly, but as I demonstrated in an earlier post there is a significant difference between direct and indirect responsibility. Evidence that Augustine said that God made people wicked? I have a hunch you are in error.

Quote:

(our sinful nature...) Ed: God didnt design it, it came about because of our sin. He can fix it, all you have to do is ask Him. lp:No, it was not our fault that we are born guilty of some alleged "original sin". Though St. Augustine had maintained that babies are terrible sinners, being guilty of gluttony, jealousy, and the like.

Fraid so, see above about perfect representation. As far as babies being terrible sinners, not quite, but they are sinners, ask any parent. Babies can be very selfish. Often a baby that has been fed and had its diapers changed will still cry just to get attention.

Quote:

Ed: No, many of Christ's teachings are implied and exemplified in his life rather than explicitly spoken. For example, how he treated unbelievers with respect and kindness. And convince them by persuasion, not force. lp: That would not be apparent from his vilifications of those who would not listen to him. Socrates and the Buddha had been MUCH more civil in that regard.

He was only harsh to believers not unbelievers. Because they are held to a higher standard. And hypocrisy is one of the most serious sins.

Quote:

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me". jtb: It is ludicrous to suggest that this is "freedom of conscience" Ed: This parable is of Judgement Day. For all of your time on earth you have freedom of conscience but once the time has come for you to enter his kingdom, ie your death, he cannot allow any enemies within his gates. ... lp: An omnipotent being would be capable of neutralizing every possible enemy.

He does by sending them to hell.

Quote:

Ed: No, Christians believe that the bible is a unified whole and therefore you interpret scripture with scripture. Especially difficult passages that appear to contradict other passages. The difficult passages are interpreted with the clear passages. lp: Pure circular reasoning. And there is no book in the Bible called "How to Interpret Me".

Hardly circular, that is how you interpret ANY text.

Quote:

Ed: ... Living matter is the ultimate cause of living matter, Thanx to Ed's Law of Resemblance, of course.

Nope, biology's Law of Biogenesis.

lpetrich

Ed:
I have not denied that God is responsible indirectly, but as I demonstrated in an earlier post there is a significant difference between direct and indirect responsibility.

Hairsplitting that would make a sleazy lawyer proud.

Evidence that Augustine said that God made people wicked? I have a hunch you are in error.

I've seen how successful Ed's other "hunches" are. St. Augustine believed in predestination, which is the belief that god has decided who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. Yes, god decided who he's send to hell.

As far as babies being terrible sinners, not quite, but they are sinners, ask any parent.

And what does that prove? That they deserve to be burned alive forever and ever and ever?

(... And there is no book in the Bible called "How to Interpret Me")
Hardly circular, that is how you interpret ANY text.

So one ought to treat the Bible as potentially errant? With no more necessary historicity than the Iliad or the Odyssey?

Ed:
Nope, biology's Law of Biogenesis.

Which Ed treats as some sort of mathematical axiom.

Ed

I pointed out several gaps in my posts to Oolon early in that thread.

Quote:

jtb: You are STILL contradicting yourself. "Spiritual DNA" is a fiction invented by you to justify the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others. It is an "explanation" of why there are no "innocents", why all of us supposedly have an "innate tendency to sin". This severely limits our free will. And it means that many of us are being punished for the consequences of something that is NOT our fault. Ed: No, what the bible teaches about sin is very similar to something like "spiritual DNA". I never said we had absolute free will, our will is limited in many ways even besides our desire to rebel against God. But as personal beings we have the ability to overcome desires. Many men have the desire to have sex with every pretty girl they see, but they dont act upon it. So therefore we ARE responsible for what we do even if we have a desire to do something that is wrong. jtb: You are still missing the point that it is NOT OUR FAULT that we suffer from "corrupted spiritual DNA". Therefore we CANNOT be justly punished for it, therefore "we are all sinners deserving of death" CANNOT be just. Because this would mean that ALL OF US actually sin because of it: NOBODY can resist it. If some people DO resist it, then THEY are not sinners deserving of death. This contradicts Christian doctrine.

See above about a perfect representative. Noone can resist it fully but some can resist certain sins. Of course with God's help you can resist even more.

Quote:

jtb:Also, the problem is GOD'S FAULT anyhow.

See my post to lp above.

Quote:

jtb: Why would God design "spiritual DNA"? Why would God not FIX our "spiritual DNA" if it got corrupted? You have never answered that question. Ed: God didnt design it, it came about because of our sin. He can fix it, all you have to do is ask Him. jtb: No, God designed it. God supposedly designed EVERYTHING. And it didn't come about because of OUR sin! You have never answered the question of why WE must suffer because of the sin of OTHERS.

No, God didnt design everything, like cars for one. God didnt design cars. Some things are created by humans and some things that we do have unintended consequences, like our rebellion against God. Our perfect representatives failed to follow God's law, but we would have done the same thing that they did so it is OUR sin too.

Quote:

jtb: Irrelevant. ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, those people were killed SPECIFICALLY for the sins of others. Remember, Paul's own perverted morality was centuries in the future. Ed: No, Christians believe that the bible is a unified whole and therefore you interpret scripture with scripture. Especially difficult passages that appear to contradict other passages. The difficult passages are interpreted with the clear passages. jtb: The Bible is NOT a unified whole, and many passages DO directly contradict other passages. What you're describing is the process of ignoring what the Bible actually says. If some other author says something you like, you will quote it and pretend that the problem has gone away.

No, what I am describing is how you understand ANY text.

Quote:

Ed: No, persons, personal communication, and personal relationships are not made with dead matter. jtb: False. Ed: Evidence? jtb: Books are alive? Telephone calls are alive? These are "personal communications" made of dead matter. Personal relationships aren't made of matter at all (except electrochemical patterns in brains).

No, what I mean is that they are not the result of dead matter, ie dead people dont write books, make phone calls etc. You are right they are not made of matter and neither are persons.

Quote:

Ed: Without living matter or in the case of humans personal living matter, persons cannot come into existence. jtb: False. It's equivalent to saying that "Without living matter or in the case of Americans, American living matter, Americans cannot come into existence". Ed: No, being an American is just a matter of geographic location. Being personal is intrinsic to the thing itself. jtb: No, it isn't. That's why you can't define "personal". And are you now claiming that there are no American soldiers in Iraq? Because of their geographical location, they are now Iraquis? (Note to all: I'll probably be off the Net for the next week. Have fun with the Ed-butting).

No, the geographical location of their birth or citizenship.

Ed

He was referring to the little house dogs (in the greek) that were treated almost like children to show the difference in order of precedence at the time between the jews and the gentiles. Jews were given precedence as God's originally chosen people to have the first chance to welcome Christ as savior and Messiah.

Quote:

ng: This is what you call persuasion. John 3 36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." I call it threats.

It is not a physical threat it is just a spiritual truth. Therefore, it does not violate freedom of conscience which is my point.

Ed

I dont remember, I will have to look it up.

Quote:

lp: Also, if one gradually replaces that table's parts over time, it nevertheless retains a continuity of structure, which makes it the "same" table in a structural sense.

It retains the continuity of structure of a table, but it is obviously not the same table.

Quote:

lp: It's somewhat clearer with a river -- it keeps the same shape and flow pattern despite the continual change of the water that flows in it.

Yes, but the water chemistry changes all the time so in fact it is not the same river. Also the shape changes greatly at flood stage.

Quote:

lp: Furthermore, one's mind/consciousness/personality changes over time, and does not remain absolutely fixed.

Your personality may change slightly but you are still you.

Quote:

Ed: No, Christianity DOES provide a rational reason to treat humans better than other creatures, only they are created in the image of the Creator of the universe. lp: Traditional Xian theology may be interpreted as a manifestation of bipolar disorder, a.k.a. manic depression. The manic part is claiming to be carbon copies of the creator and ruler of the Universe, while the depression part is claiming to be an original sinner who can never do anything right, and who deserves to be burned alive and otherwise tormented for an infinite amount of time.

Not quite carbon copies, we are in his image in that we are personal beings. We can do some things right but we will never have the right motivation unless God changes our heart. Actually the historico-grammatical evidence points to the reference to fire in hell as being rabbinic hyperbole and probably not literal.

Quote:

lp: Comparing to the traditional sort of deity, the only thing that we have in common is sentience. We otherwise have much more in common with a chimp than with some alleged omnimax/eternal deity.

See above about how we are in the image of God. While chimps have some aspects of personhood, they do not have a full personality. For example they lack a true will.

Quote:

(on the Amalekites...) Ed: Fraid not, read Romans 6:23 and 3:9-23. They were punished for what they did. lp: Seems like the Protocols of the Elders of Amalek. That's what the Nazis claimed about Jews -- that Jews were guilty of a variety of terrible crimes.

The difference is that the Nazis claims were false and were used as justifications for destroying the jews because of who they were.

Quote:

lp: (stuff about skipped genealogies...) If that is the case, then it is strange that the Bible does not warn about this. A book with lots of lists of begots and gorily-detailed instructions for animal sacrifices ought to contain some comments of that sort.

Given that it is not a very important subject, God probably wanted us to use our reasoning skills and learn about the history of ancient genealogies, ie that sometimes they are abbreviated.

Quote:

Ed: [b\See above how Christianity is based and interpreted on the bible as a whole textual unit. Just as any book is understood. You use other parts of the book to understand the difficult parts.

The bible claims to be and once studied in depth it becomes obvious that it is.

See my E/C thread for some gaps. PE is evolution that occurs in short rapid bursts followed by stasis, this produces a large morphological gap.

That is why we need to do more research on radioactivity and mutations.


Natural History magazine.

Many species have an egg tooth to aid in hatching from their egg.

Bird foot claws are basically equivalent to the reptiles hind limbs.

Jack the Bodiless

If it is objectively true that we are making sounds (i.e. those sounds exist independently of the beliefs of the listener), and it is objectively true that certain stimuli are being produced in our fellow humans, then it is objectively true that we are communicating. And evolution provides the objective basis upon which propositional communication is founded.

Again, how much longer will you perpetuate the lie? Who do you think you're fooling?
Given your record of fradulently claiming the existence of past posts that "support your arguments" (but don't) in THIS thread, I will not accept your claim that major gaps exist in the fossil record on your say-so (remember, I'm not interested in a missing "fossil D" or "fossil E", I want MAJOR gaps in the fossil record).

If creationism were true, BIG gaps would be easiest to find. But they're not: too many transitional fossils. So creationists must look for LITTLE gaps instead.

It has now been nearly TWO months since your February 26th post on the E/C thread. You don't dare commit yourself to declaring the existence of any such gap, and you know it. So, again, the purpose of the lie is...?
See previous posts about why this is bullshit.
Again, a hallucination. There is no "post to lp above" in which you addressed the problem that it IS all God's fault. EVERYTHING is God's fault, if we assume your God exists and created everything in accordance with his will.
According to your religion, WE did not design "original sin" (actually, we did: Paul invented it). And see previous posts about how the notion that every single human that has ever lived "would have done the same thing" is bullshit, as usual.
No, Ed. Normal folks don't "understand" ANY text by ignoring bits they don't like, finding bits they like in OTHER texts, and then pretending that's what the first text actually says. Your own reading dysfunction is not shared by everyone else.
How do you know? When did they tell you this, Ed?
And you have made similar false claims about the Amalekites, to justify destroying them because of who they were. You KNOW that you invented those claims, Ed. You KNOW they aren't in the Bible, and you KNOW that the reasons given in the Bible aren't your invented ones.

Again, your hypocrisy is evident.
Except that it isn't.

The "Big Lie" really appeals to you, Ed. Why is that?
Again, given your record, I will assume that this is a lie until proved otherwise.

Issue number? Date? Article name? Quote?

winstonjen

Until we get him some anti-hallucination drugs.

Himself, of course.

lpetrich

(Ed's continued assertion of his substantialist notions of identity...)

He has yet to show that there is some sort of "personality substance" that is responsible for our consciousnesses.

Ed:
We can do some things right but we will never have the right motivation unless God changes our heart.

Getting a heart transplant -- that seems like fun.

Actually the historico-grammatical evidence points to the reference to fire in hell as being rabbinic hyperbole and probably not literal.

Whatever that might be, since it is not very clear from the text.

(justifications for Biblical genocides of the Amalekites and others...)

The difference is that the Nazis claims were false and were used as justifications for destroying the jews because of who they were.

Yet Ed offers the same "naturally evil people" defense as the Nazis had did.

Given that it is not a very important subject, God probably wanted us to use our reasoning skills and learn about the history of ancient genealogies, ie that sometimes they are abbreviated.


(The Bible as a self-consistent book...)

The bible claims to be and once studied in depth it becomes obvious that it is.

Except that a careful study shows that it is not, that it is a big grab bag of documents.

(On why mutations in the same places in different species' genes is asking too much of coincidence...)

That is why we need to do more research on radioactivity and mutations.

Ed, there is a big volume of literature on the subject of mutations; you will find that the work has already been done.