Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 04-06-2002, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duck of Death:


Aren't you YEC? Surely that means that you don't even accept that the Cretaceous period (144-65 mya) even existed! And even if you abandon YEC, you're surely not suggesting that Noah lived over 65 mya?

Duck!

Hello Duck. I am undecided on the age of the earth, but given that the scriptures dont tell us when Noah lived, he could have lived 65 mya.

cricket · 04-06-2002, 08:47 PM

Quote:

If human populations were very small during the Cretaceous then there would probably not be any human fossils from that period.

The Cretaceous!? WTF?

lpetrich · 04-06-2002, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Ed:
Most paleontologists believe they were slow-footed and slow witted. Only a few would be swept into higher sediments and with such a small number fossilization is unlikely.

WHICH paleontologists?

Quote:

Ed:
The independent evidence is the sediments of any large flood even occuring today. If you take samples of the sediment you will see that organisms that are slower and lower in the topography are the ones that are lower in the sediments.

However, floods have a tendency to mix things up -- and not produce the neat layering and alternations of different sorts of rocks that one finds.

Quote:

(Big-sediment vs. little-sediment alternatives of Noah's Flood)
Ed:
There are christian geologists on both sides of the issue. I have yet to decide on my position.

Ed, be honest and take responsibility for your statements. If you defend a position, you are legitimately presumed to be supporting it. So don't turn around and claim that it's not really your position. People will start to question your honesty.

And why not consider the position that Noah's Flood is pure mythology?

Quote:

lp: Ed, the mainstream scientific community dumped Flood Geology almost 200 years ago, around when Charles Darwin was born. The rocks are too neatly layered to be the result of a single big flood -- especially one stirred up by some Fountains of the Deep.
Ed:
The fountains of the deep were widely dispersed so their effect on the strata would have been negligible.

Which is pure hokum. Ed, which position are you now taking? Big sediment or little sediment?

Quote:

lp: And why would a virus insert itself into exactly the same place in different genomes? That asks too much of coincidence.
Ed:
Viruses often have the same effect on two different species.

Disease symptoms != insertion locations in genomes.

Quote:

Ed:
Hello Cora. Maybe cycads preferred the lower elevation swamps.
lp:
Ed grasps at straws. Present-day cycads don't have such a preference.
Ed:
Well maybe they did in the past.

Ed, maybe Jesus Christ had been homosexual, he with his 12 male Apostles and his beloved male disciple and he and Judas kissing and all.

Quote:

Ed:
If human populations were very small during the Cretaceous then there would probably not be any human fossils from that period.

If there were any such populations in the first place.

Quote:

Originally posted by Duck of Death:
Aren't you YEC? Surely that means that you don't even accept that the Cretaceous period (144-65 mya) even existed! And even if you abandon YEC, you're surely not suggesting that Noah lived over 65 mya?
Ed:
Hello Duck. I am undecided on the age of the earth, but given that the scriptures dont tell us when Noah lived, he could have lived 65 mya.

Very ingenious. Ed jumps between young-earthism and old-earthism as it suits him.

Ed · 04-07-2002, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

Ed:
... No, of all the stories of the flood, only the biblical one seems the most plausible. ...
... because the style is much more realistic and not so fantastical as the mythological versions of the flood story.

I have read the Epic of Gilgemesh for one and the biblical account reads much more realistically.

lp: Getting Ed to answer critical questions can be like pulling teeth. But I fail to see how the Biblical version is much more "realistic" than the Gilgamesh version. Could it be that Ed rejects the existence of the deities of ancient Babylon, and that this rejection colors his judgment of the Gilgamesh version's amout of realism?[/b]

I am not an expert in literature so I cant explain it very well but it is obvious to me. Maybe you can talk to an English professor at your local college and they can put the difference in words better than I.

Quote:

LP on Revelation 7 and the angels holding back the winds;
Ed:
Well for one it is in apocalyptic literature and such literature is almost totally symbolic. Also the phrase "four corners of the earth" is a common phrase used in languages and cultures all through history to mean all regions of the earth.

lp: Evidence for that contention? However, "four corners of the Earth" is meant literally here, because we are told that there is an angel at each corner holding back a wind. The verses are Revelation 7:1-2.

It is obvious from the context for someone with experience reading the bible that Revelation 7 is a VISION not something that is occurring in reality. Also this is obviously a figure of speech similar to Jeremiah 49:36.

Quote:

Ed:
Mainstream geologists are required to adhere to an unwritten assent to the fatally flawed philosophy of Naturalism.
Any hint of some supernatural event immediately throws you out of the academic "club".

You are immediately labeled a fundamentalist and marginalized.

lp: Cry me a river, Ed, about how persecuted your favorite people are. There is a good reason to avoid using the "Goddidit" hypothesis. This is because "Goddidit" can explain anything, and therefore really nothing. Unless one can demonstrate that there are some phenomena that "Goddidit" can not possibly explain.

No, you have got it reversed. Since 99.9% of the time God uses natural laws to control the universe a good theistic scientist first looks for any possible natural explanation and only after he exhausts all possible natural explanations then would he say that a creator may have acted. But of course depending on what it is, he would still leave open the possibility that the cause was natural.

Quote:

Ed:
Subject-object correlation is that there is a correlation between what you see and observe and what is really there. Do you think there is a correlation? If so, how do you know there is a correlation and on basis do think there is this correlation?

lp: I accept that my perceptions are perceptions of an external world because these perceptions have patterns that are independent of my thoughts.

How do you know they are independent of your thoughts?

Quote:

lp:
And Ed, what would cause you to reject Flood Geology?
Ed:
If I could be convinced by the biblical data that the flood was local.
lp: That, and only that?
Ed:
Yes.

lp: Ed, I must honor you for being so honest.

Thank you. That is the first nice thing you have said to me!

Quote:

Ed:
If you only go back into your own past then that theoretically may be possible and would not be logically impossible. But you would not be able to go back before you were born.

lp: So there is some temporal brick wall at one's birth or conception?

Yeah its called logic.

Quote:

(the Midianite Comfort Women...)
Ed:
While it may offend our Christ influenced modern western society it hardly qualifies as an atrocity when understood in its historical context.
lp: WHAT "historical context"? The Bible doesn't point out which parts are valid for all time and which parts are not.
Ed:
Not explicitly, but it is implied. At the time of Moses the goal of believers was to establish a theocracy but after Christ, the goal of believers is to "make disciples of all nations". Some parts in the OT only apply to the theocracy such as how to handle captured women from conquered nations. It is determined by grammatico-historical hermeneutics.

lp: Seems like the Bible is written in a very defective fashion -- it is supposedly the world's perfect textbook, but one has to go through all this trouble and contortion to interpret it.

Also, this answer might best be called "moral relativism". That's right, moral relativism.

What trouble and contortion? Its called scholarship. Scholarship is needed in the deeper parts of the scriptures. God wants us to use our brains else he wouldnt have given brains to us. How is it moral relativism? No morality changed just believer's goals.

[b]

Quote:

lp: Also, if I had to classify the Gospels, I'd call them "hagiography".
Ed:
Who would you rather have write your biography, your family and friends who know you best or some stranger whom you have never met?
lp: If the stranger was a good reporter, I would not object.
Ed:
Thats the point, you wouldn't know if he was a good reporter, he's a stranger. So wouldn't you rather take your chances with people who know you best like family and friends.

lp: I could see some examples of that reporter's work, and I could find out how competent that reporter is considered by those familiar with his/her work.

Yeah, but if you were unable to do so, I am sure you would pick family and friends.

lpetrich · 04-07-2002, 10:11 PM

Quote:

lp: Getting Ed to answer critical questions can be like pulling teeth. But I fail to see how the Biblical version is much more "realistic" than the Gilgamesh version. Could it be that Ed rejects the existence of the deities of ancient Babylon, and that this rejection colors his judgment of the Gilgamesh version's amout of realism?
Ed:
I am not an expert in literature so I cant explain it very well but it is obvious to me. Maybe you can talk to an English professor at your local college and they can put the difference in words better than I.

More likely, that professor won't see much difference. Also, if one looks closely, the Biblical version is actually two versions woven together -- versions which contradict each other in several details -- while the Gilgamesh version is only one. So the Gilgamesh one wins on coherence.

And Ed has made no attempt to rebut my speculation that his denial of the existence of the Babylonian gods has colored his judgment.

Quote:

lp: Evidence for that contention? However, "four corners of the Earth" is meant literally here, because we are told that there is an angel at each corner holding back a wind. The verses are Revelation 7:1-2.
Ed:
It is obvious from the context for someone with experience reading the bible that Revelation 7 is a VISION not something that is occurring in reality. ...

Tell that to those who insist that the Book of Revelation is camcorder-accurate future history.

Quote:

lp: Cry me a river, Ed, about how persecuted your favorite people are. There is a good reason to avoid using the "Goddidit" hypothesis. This is because "Goddidit" can explain anything, and therefore really nothing. Unless one can demonstrate that there are some phenomena that "Goddidit" can not possibly explain.
Ed:
No, you have got it reversed. Since 99.9% of the time God uses natural laws to control the universe a good theistic scientist first looks for any possible natural explanation and only after he exhausts all possible natural explanations then would he say that a creator may have acted. But of course depending on what it is, he would still leave open the possibility that the cause was natural.

Very ingenious. Ed seems to accept the weakness of the "Goddidit" hypothesis.

Quote:

lp: I accept that my perceptions are perceptions of an external world because these perceptions have patterns that are independent of my thoughts.
Ed:
How do you know they are independent of your thoughts?

It may be difficult for me to prove that the rest of the Universe is not one giant hallucination. But essentially all of it acts independent of my thoughts, or at least, those that are apparent to my consciousness. So either there is an unconscious mind that generates some extremely fancy and detailed hallucinations, or there is an external world independent of my thoughts.

Quote:

(defense of the capture of the Midianite Comfort Women)
lp: Seems like the Bible is written in a very defective fashion -- it is supposedly the world's perfect textbook, but one has to go through all this trouble and contortion to interpret it.

Also, this answer might best be called "moral relativism". That's right, moral relativism.

Ed:
What trouble and contortion? Its called scholarship. Scholarship is needed in the deeper parts of the scriptures. God wants us to use our brains else he wouldnt have given brains to us. How is it moral relativism? No morality changed just believer's goals.

But why write in an unclear fashion. That is extremely illogical. An instruction book has to be very clear and not require a whole lot of interpretation. And if some specialized knowledge is required, it ought to be explained as clearly as possible.

And I believe that the Bible fails those tests.

Quote:

lp: I could see some examples of that reporter's work, and I could find out how competent that reporter is considered by those familiar with his/her work.
Ed:
Yeah, but if you were unable to do so, I am sure you would pick family and friends.

But even then, I would select only those I consider competent and reasonably objective.

Oolon Colluphid · 04-08-2002, 12:17 AM

Gosh, I could have sworn I was talking to Ed too... but no reply to my posts... Oh well, must've been mistaken...

Oolon

Quetzal · 04-08-2002, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
Gosh, I could have sworn I was talking to Ed too... but no reply to my posts... Oh well, must've been mistaken...Oolon

Take a number.

Ed · 04-08-2002, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

Ed:
... But for scholars that take scripture's authority seriously they use grammatico-historical hermeneutics to determine which parts of the text are allegorical irregardless of scientific findings. ...

lp: And what is "grammatico-historical hermeneutics"?[/b]

Interpretation based on the specific characteristics of the language and the historical context.

[b]

Quote:

Ed:
While Genesis 1 has some characteristics of allegory, the account of the flood is obviously historical narrative and any biblical scholar worth his salt would say so.

lp: And how is that the case? Be specific.

Compare the accounts of the flood in the Psalms with the Genesis account. In the psalms it is in poetic form, in Genesis it is historical narrative.

Ed · 04-08-2002, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:

Originally posted by Ed:
That [that Ed doesn’t know whether KNM-ER 1813 is ape or human] is not what I said. Please read my post next time before responding. I said that the reason there is some disagreement among creationists and even evolutionists about Homo habilis is that the evidence is somewhat fragmentary like that skull you posted with huge chunks missing.

OC: So to repeat, you don’t know which it is. Why should it be so difficult to tell an ape from a human?[/b]

The more fragmentary the evidence the more difficult it is. If the fragments are small enough it becomes difficult to even tell a human from a pig! Ever hear of Piltdown Man?

Quote:

Ed: Also, I agree with Lubenow that the Homo habilis collection is a mixture of human and ape fossils.

OC: Again, what is the difference? Where do you draw the line?

I already explained how, see my post to your first pictures.

[b] [quote]OC: Ref KNM-WT 15000’s skull:

Quote:

Ed: While there is some protrusion of the jaw it is not to the extent of apes.

OC: Nor is it as reduced as in modern humans. And where’s its chin?

I have met people with less of a chin than that! So it is definitely within the human range.

Quote:

Ed: And the cranium is relatively large compared to an ape's.

OC: And far smaller than a modern human’s.

No, it is definitely within the modern or ancient human range.

Quote:

Ed: Homo erectus is definitely human

OC: Yet earlier ones have some distinctly non-modern-human features, such as cranial keeling, relatively small thoracic spinal canal diameter, smaller cervical and lumbar swellings, as well as smaller cranial capacity. [Edited to add: see also this thread on H erectus's teeth.]

All of which is what evolution expects.

And all with the human range. According to Neanderthal expert Dr. Erik Trinkaus has said that there is virually no difference in cranial morphology between neanderthals and homo erectus. And as far as your teeth website, the speed of human organ growth is based on nutrition so that article is irrelevant to establishing relationships between erectus and apes.

Quote:

Ed: homo erectuslike skulls have been found in populations of Australian aborigines only 10,000 years old.

OC: Sure, could be, if the multiregional hypothesis is correct. References please. You have evidence that these skulls are the ancestors of the aborigine population in question? That’s quite some evidence, if you can provide it. A test of the multiregional versus African erectus / ergaster out-of-Africa. Come on, let’s see it!

A.G. Thorne and P.G. Macumber, "Discoveries of late Pleistocene Man at Kow Swamp, Australia, Nature, 238(11 August 1972). Also in 1996 paleontologist Carl C. Swisher of the Berkeley Geochronology Center redated Java Man and instead of the expected hundreds of thousands years, a newer technique based on the decay of uranium yielded an age of 27,000 to 53,000 years. Which means that they were living in Java with "modern" humans.

[b]

Quote:

Both skulls [H habilis, OH 24 and A africanus, STS 5] appear to be apes, except the habilis skull is missing so much skull that it is somewhat difficult to be sure. See above about the habilis collection

Sure. Okay, here’s STS 5 again:

And here’s a different habilis, KNM-ER 1813:

And here’s ergaster / erectus again, KNM-WT 15000:

The above skull is extremely damaged and distorted so it cannot be as clearly differentiated, however, the skeleton associated with it (KNM-WT 15000) was 5.5 feet tall and was only a 13 year old boy so he would have grown probably to 6 feet, only 100% humans could grow that tall.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ed ]

Ed · 04-09-2002, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
What makes one human and the others ape? If differences as great as between this:

and this:

can be the result of selection, what makes you so sure that the rather more subtle differences in the hominid skulls above cannot be? Why is there a line to be drawn?[/b]

I already stated how to make the differentiation. But posting the dog skulls does help me make another point. It shows how an organism can have a very different skeleton and in fact not be ancestral or even a different species but in fact be the very same species. And I believe that is the case with early humans, they appear to be a little more morphologically variable than humans today. Just like the modern dog.

[b]

Quote:

OC: What, hummingbirds migrated across the Atlantic to South America? Marsupial moles tunnelled their way to Australia? All the penguins swam only to the Antarctic, and all the puffins to the north? Fossas and lemurs made it to Madagascar, but no monkeys or cats? How, precisely, did plants migrate -- and why did cacti only go to the Americas, and (now) endemic species of mosses only to Africa? Sequoias marched like wakened Ents to the Sierra Nevadas, and nowhere else? How come seas are now such a geographic barrier to species? How did dodos get to Mauritius, and the flightless cormorant Nannopetrum harrisi to the Galapagos, and why nowhere else? How about the numerous species of creatures endemic to particular caves, such as blind salamanders (eg Typhlomolge rathbuni) and insects (eg the Hawaiian cave planthopper Oliarus polyphemus)? Do you have the slightest idea what biogeography is? Do you have the slightest evidence for this dispersal?
TTFN, Oolon

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Ever hear of Gondwanaland? The flood may have occurred shortly before Gondwanaland broke up so many species could have easily migrated to suitable habitats. Some species segregated according competition and subtle differences in ecosystems. Plants would have dispersed on vegetation mats, winds, attaching to migrating animals and humans, dormant seeds and etc. Some of your examples are examples of microevolution, ie sequoias(evolved conifers), cave animals, flightless birds and etc.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ed ]

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

04-08-2002, 12:17 AM	#226
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Gosh, I could have sworn I was talking to Ed too... but no reply to my posts... Oh well, must've been mistaken... Oolon

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.