tommyc

I'd say there probably isn't any empirical evidence for this currently, if you're taking this as your definition for personal:
But I would say that most evolutionists would consider this to have occured gradually over a period of time way back when all that soup stuff was going on (my biology teacher would be proud) when creatures began to become self-aware.

Any biologists want to give me a hand here??

Jack the Bodiless

I don't think that a personal walking-stick has the properties of "being rational and self-conscious: having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction".

If "producing the personal" means pointing at something and saying "that's mine": well, I don't think that's a very profound achievement! The notion that evolution can't happen because it breaks a natural law based on this principle is obviously nonsense.
Smerm and ova cannot point to a stick and say "that's mine".

A newborn baby cannot point to a stick and say "that's mine".

But, later, they can.

If you want an emirical example of human-like intelligence arising from lesser intelligence without a human parent existing first, then the evolution of humans from (other) apes qualifies. This is not just a hypothesis: it is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence.

And this empirical evidence won't magically go away just because it contradicts the Bible.

tommyc

Cue creationist argument:

AHh!, no its not empirical, because noone was there to actually see it happening!

Jack the Bodiless

Tell them to buy a dictionary!

From www.mirriamwebster.com:
The conclusion that humans evolved from apes IS based on observation. Not observation of the event itself, but observation nevertheless: direct observation of fossils, physiology, genetic data etc etc etc.

Creationists are fond of slapping an "ism" on the end (darwinism, evolutionism) and pretending that belief in evolution is some sort of abstract "philosophy" or "religion". They are, of course, lying.

Without the empirical evidence, there would be no "philosophy" that humans evolved from (other) apes. This belief wasn't handed down in any "holy book": it was empirically deduced and empirically confirmed.

Jack the Bodiless

Of course, I can easily invent a character called "Zug the Time-Traveller" who went back in time to witness the evolution of humans.

Here is a complete list of all the non-fictional historical personages who definitely witnessed Jesus:

{ }

Ed

First let me say that there is overlap in the ages/days, just as any age has some overlap from one age to another. An age is more general term than a 24 hr day. The term for grass in hebrew is much broader than the english term. It just basically means "small plants on the ground." This term could just as easily refer to fungi and algae. So gradual creation of plants started on that day with the simplest plants on up to the more complex ones that overlap into the next age/day.

Quote:

jtb: Birds did NOT appear after grass, or before land animals.

Again the term "bird" in hebrew just basically means flying creatures. So this age/day was the creating of the first flying creatures which could include flying fish and insects. Also the term for "sea creatures and water creatures" would include amphibians for the ancient hebrews so flying insects did exist with amphibians. And then this age overlaps the next age when what we would call primitive birds were created.

Quote:

jtb: The Flood can be DATED from the Bible, and people living at that time did NOT mention it (and did not drown either). Status of Genesis: DEFEATED.

Fraid not. The flood is never dated in the bible and given that the genealogies are not exhaustive and that the term often translated "son of" can also mean "descendent of". The date cannot be calculated, it is indefinite.
Status of Genesis: UNDEFEATED.

Quote:

jtb: Christianity plainly does NOT teach that rape is immoral. Jesus himself said nothing about it. And in the Old Testament: well, we've covered that. Ed: No, I demonstrated that even in the OT rape was considered immoral. And in the NT it is covered under the Golden Rule, Christ's teachings against fornication, and Paul's teaching that your wife should be treated like you treat your own body.

jtb: We have proved that raping their wives was an acceptable way of punishing MEN, [/quote]

No, as the scripture stated they were NOT to mistreat the captive women, this plainly includes rape.

Quote:

jtb: and that single women had no defense against being raped (they were "fair game"), and that it was customary to rape captured virgins.

It is true that single women were in much more dangerous situations in ancient societies, especially the surrounding pagan nations around ancient Israel where ritual involuntary prostitution was common. There was no organized police force in those days so single women were much more strongly motivated to marry. That is why these captive women would be much more likely to resign to marriage with soldiers that killed their families.

Quote:

jtb: Also, that the Golden Rule cannot be applied to rape. Ststus of Biblical rape denial: DEFEATED.

You have failed to demonstrate that the GR cannot be applied to rape. Status of biblical rape denial: UNDEFEATED.

Quote:

Ed: Actually metaphysical naturalism is fatally flawed, it cannot even give a reason why objective evidence exists. jtb: Christian theism cannot give a reason why GOD exists. Strange that you don't consider this to be a "fatal flaw". Ed: Fraid so, the reason is the existence of the universe. The universe is an effect and every effect requires a cause.

jtb: You utterly failed to give any reason why the Universe AND God exist. By your own argument, this is a "fatal flaw".

Status of argument for necessity of God's existence: DEFEATED.[/quote]

Given that something can logically be a cause without being an effect, a being that is self existent, ie God, does not need a cause for his existence.

Status of argument for the existence of God: UNDEFEATED.

Quote:

Ed: The subject-object correlation is unexplainable by naturalism, as I demonstrated in another thread. jtb: Evolution. Ed: No, evolution, if correct, would only explain the existence of subjects. It does not explain how, or even if, subjects are observing and experiencing what is really there.

jtb: Yes, it does. Natural selection of an essential survival trait: accurate sensory apparatus.

Status of subject-object correlation argument: DEFEATED.[/quote]

No, survivability does not require knowledge of what is actually there. For example, an amoeba can hide under a shoe "thinking" it is a rock. It still may allow it to survive but its knowledge is incorrect and may eventually hurt its survivability, ie if the shoe has a human in it the amoeba may get crushed.

Quote:

You have yet to demonstrate Genesis is false and that MN is not. See above about subject-object correlation.

See above about defeat of Genesis and subject-object correlation.

Quote:

The existence of God was demonstrated using the Law of Causality. The universe is an effect and therefore requires a Cause. So once His existence is demonstrated then we can see that the Christian God best fits that cause. And the Christian God has a written communication to us, the Bible and in that communication he tells us his rules by which we can live the most fulfilled life.

jtb: The Christian God does NOT fit the cause. God is unnecessary and the Bible is riddled with contradictions: it was written entirely by men.

Status of First Cause argument: DEFEATED.[/quote]

No, see above. BTW, I never denied it was not entirely written by men.

Quote:

nogo: I challenge you to resolve even one. Take for example Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. There are four names missing and I suppose that Matthew removed them because he needed the 14-14-14 combination. That is, 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the exile and 14 generations from the exile to Jesus. In Chronicles there are 18 generations from David to the exile. Explain away! Ancient genealogies were not exhaustive as we would tend to do today. They primarily dealt with just noteworthy ancestors. So it is possible that he left out ancestors he did not consider of major importance to also come up with 14 which is a 2 times 7, and 7 was the number of completeness to the Jews.

In other words: the genealogies are wrong. You are admitting defeat on this one.

Status of NOGO's challenge: VINDICATED.

I will also add:

Status of your defense of the Amalekite massacre: DEFEATED.

It's all over, Ed.

You have lost everything. [/QUOTE]

Absurd. The genealogies not being exhaustive is not equivalent to being wrong. Is a Websters Abridged Dictionary wrong? Of course not.

Status of NOGO's challenge: DEFEATED. See previous post about the amalekite massacre.

Jack the Bodiless

Yet again you have chosen to abandon the Bible. Genesis is quite clear on this point: NO OVERLAP. The days are counted. When an evening occurs, the day ends. When the next morning occurs, that's the next day. Genesis is definitely describing consecutive, non-overlapping DAYS. In fact, it reads as if the author was concerned about a possible day/age ambiguity in Hebrew and was deliberately clarifying this point!
Flying insects evolved from LAND insects, Ed. All genuinely "flying" creatures (i.e. capable of sustained flight, unlike "flying" fish) evolved from land creatures.

And still no overlap. "And the evening ad the morning were the fifth day".
The claim that Biblical genealogies weren't exaustive is pure fiction invented by apologists. The term translated as "son of", when used in a genealogy, DOES mean "son of": because the intent of the passage is to lay out a genealogy.

Not that it matters anyhow, as the AGE of each person when he "became the ancestor of" the next IS specified. If you know the age of my grandfather when I was born, you don't need to know the age of my father to date my grandfather's birth.

Status of Genesis: DEFEATED.
It plainly DOES NOT include rape.
Please explain why these women would rather be raped by the men who murdered their families than by strangers.

The notion that these women voluntarily submitted to these murderers for their own protection is utterly repugnant. I suggest you proofread your posts and check for this type of stupidity in future.
Sheesh, just go back a few pages. Or, better yet, just re-read the whole thread.

You lost, bigtime.
And I can just as easily claim that THE UNIVERSE isn't an effect and doesn't need a cause.

Your answer to my question is just another refusal to answer: "I say that God doesn't need a reason to exist, he just exists, so go away".

I can give a similar answer, so yours is no better. Therefore your God is not NECESSARY, and your argument fails.
Sensory apparatus increases the CHANCE of survival. Therefore it will be selected for. Therefore it will prevail, and get steadily better.
The Bible says that "these are all the generations".

ALL.

By your own admission, this is not true.

Therefore the Bible is wrong.
You have already ADMITTED that NOGO was right. So, if NOGO was right, how can you claim that his challenge was defeated?

The reset is kicking in again. You are either lying in the hope that nobody will read your confession that NOGO was right, or you honestly have a mental disorder that causes you to keep forgetting your defeats.

You have repeatedly admitted on this thread that the primary reason for the massacre of the Amalekites was what their ancestors did 400 years previously, after initially denying it but being forced by NOGO to admit that you were wrong.

It is futile to lie when the lie can be exposed so easily, Ed.

And while we're on the subject of lying, Ed:
No, Ed, YOU wimped out.

NOGO asked you over and over and over again to clarify your position on the punishment of innocents for the crimes of their ancestors. He insisted that you do this before continuing. He repeatedly warned you that he saw little point in continuing until you answered.

You repeatedly wimped out.

And you have sought to dredge up other arguments to disguise this fact. You have lost, Ed. You KNOW that you have lost.

And you will use any lie, any form of dishonesty, to disguise the fact. I guess this comes from having no moral standards, Ed.

NOGO left because he had DEFEATED you. Just as Starboy and myself (and, indeed, just about everybody else) have DEFEATED you.

Jack the Bodiless

Though I guess you're coming closer to answering NOGO's question:
You have now invented "spiritual DNA" as a means of justifying the punishment of innocents for the crimes of their ancestors.

Does this only apply to the Fall, or is it generally applicable? If a man commits a crime, and then has kids, is it OK to punish them because of their bad "spiritual DNA"?

What if the kids had already been born when he committed the crime? Can it be transferred into existing kids, unlike normal DNA?

If it works more like mormal DNA, then what about dominant and recessive genes? What are the rules regarding inheritance of the characteristic? If a particular kid has a 50% chance of inheriting bad spiritual DNA: should they receive 50% of the punsihment, or should the judge flip a coin and let chance or God decide?

And presumably God designed this stuff, and it works as God intended. So why does he need it as an excuse? Why is the arbitrary punishment of descendants not OK without it, but OK with it?

If it causes injustice, why doesn't God get rid of it, or eliminate the bad spiritual gene?

I have already pointed out that it would be unjust for God to punish us for inheriting a genetic disorder. This would also apply to "spiritual DNA".

NOGO

ED:
Probably today that is true, but originally the US was founded as a republic which means that the majority elects qualified representatives who make decisions based on a foundation of certain unchanging laws and principles. If we still had a judeo-christian republic such a thing would never occur.

nogo:
The idea of "unchaging laws" is a theist concept. It is anti-democratic. The US was never a judeo-christian republic.


ED:
Huh? That is what a republic is, government by law. How is it undemocratic? If among those unchanging laws is representative government and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then NOT having unchanging laws is what is undemocratic. Just saying that the US was never a judeo-christian republic doesnt make it so. The overwhelming majority of the founding fathers were Christians and the foundation of our human rights is based on the judeo-christian concept that all men are created equally in God's image.

NOGO:
Really?
What you are saying is that if a majority of people in the US (say 90%) decide that they want a king and no longer want representation then they wont be able to do it. Who will stop them? You, Ed?

Founding fathers may have been Christians but they had a clear vision on NOT making the US republic a religious one.

A republic is not just "government by law".
Every country on earth has government by law.
The question is who makes these laws?
In a republic they are made by the representatives of the people.
In a Kingdom it is they King who makes the laws
In a dictatorship is it the dictator.
In a theocracy the claim is that it comes from God.

Only in a theocracy are the laws immutable.
Nations such as Iran and Saudie Arabia are theocracies.
Ancient Israel was a theocracy.

Throughout the middles ages the Kings were crowned by the Pope or other high priest as it was in ancient Israel.

Just like the Romans and Greeks, today we elect people to govern and change the laws that we live by. This is what a republic is about. ... very far from judeo-christian principles.

NOGO

Matthew 1:17
So all the generations
from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;
from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and
from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

So what are you saying Ed, that Matthew is wrong when he says that there are 14 generations from David to the deportation?