Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 11-23-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

lp: However, an omnipotent being would have no trouble arranging for that greater good to occur without anything bad happening, otherwise that being would not be omnipotent.
Ed:
No, the biblical understanding of omnipotence doesnt mean that He can do absolutely anything. For example, he cannot do evil, he cannot make a square circle, he cannot not exist, and etc.

lp: Where in the Bible is the Biblical God described as being limited in these ways?

I John 1:5 demonstrates that there is nothing contradictory in Him, i.e. he cannot go against logic.

Quote:

Ed:
It may for some unknown to us reason, not be possible for a greater good to occur without something bad happening.

lp: However, an omnipotent being could create Heaven, populate it, and be done with it.

True and he could do any number of other things. So your point is?

Quote:

lp: Also, I'd rather be descended from an ape than some dirt (see Genesis 2). At least apes look almost human.
Ed:
Actually science has confirmed that we are made of the same materials as the earth and in fact the rest of the universe. So this teaching has been confirmed by science.

lp: One could come to that "conclusion" from most other creation stories. What's new here? Ed should get out of his ideological house some more.

Evidence {}

Quote:

lp: I wonder what Ed would consider acceptable evidence -- going back in time in a time machine? Microbes and tiny worms simply do not fossilize very well.
Ed:
Maybe or could it be that is because the transitions never existed?

lp: A reasonable conclusion ONLY if one would reasonably expect fossils to be present. But lots of things simply do not fossilize very well.

Sounds like a theory that is non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Quote:

(on the "Tree of Life" in Genesis 2)
lp: As is evidence for talking snakes, which suggests that the story is some kind of fairy tale.
Ed:
Not in the context of the whole bible.
lp: What "context"? Something manufactured to explain away embarrassments?
Ed:
Hardly, every text has a context.

lp: However, Ed's comments are pure special pleading, since he complains that some suitably-manufactured "context" is absent. He ought to complain to the writers of the Bible, since they leave the story without the proper "context".

I call it special pleading, because he ignores how Genesis 2 has a typical literary characteristic of fairy tales -- talking animals.

But as I demonstrated in an earlier post about the literary characteristics of the whole bible, it does not have the characteristics of myth.

lpetrich · 11-23-2002, 08:43 PM

I first thought of composing a fantasy of me as a sperm whale and Ed as a giant squid, but I've decided to get more directly to the point:

Quote:

lp: Also, I'd rather be descended from an ape than some dirt (see Genesis 2). At least apes look almost human.
Ed:
Actually science has confirmed that we are made of the same materials as the earth and in fact the rest of the universe. So this teaching has been confirmed by science.

lp: One could come to that "conclusion" from most other creation stories. ...
Ed:
Evidence {}

Ed, do I have to spoonfeed you on the subject of other creation myths?

Quote:

Ed:
... could it be that is because the transitions never existed?

lp: A reasonable conclusion ONLY if one would reasonably expect fossils to be present. But lots of things simply do not fossilize very well.
Ed:
Sounds like a theory that is non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Like your hidden global flood of 2 million years ago?

Quote:

LP:
I call it special pleading, because he ignores how Genesis 2 has a typical literary characteristic of fairy tales -- talking animals.
Ed:
But as I demonstrated in an earlier post about the literary characteristics of the whole bible, it does not have the characteristics of myth.

Except that the Bible is NOT a unified, coherent document, but a grab bag of a variety of documents.

ps418 · 11-24-2002, 07:33 AM

Quote:

lp: A reasonable conclusion ONLY if one would reasonably expect fossils to be present. But lots of things simply do not fossilize very well.

Quote:

Ed: Sounds like a theory that is non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific.

You wouldn't know a falsifiable theory if it crawled up you nose and bit you on your left frontal lobe. The 'theory' that some organisms have a relatively very low probability of being preserved in the sedimentary record is actually a demonstrable fact, verified by extensive taphonomic investigation in modern sedimentary environments.

Unless you actually want to remain ignorant, you might want to check out some research on this subject in journals such as Palaios and The Journal of Sedimentary Research, or in books on taphonomy such as Taphonomy: A Process Approach.

Duvenoy · 11-24-2002, 05:53 PM

Hey ps418,

I am all but convinced that our friend Ed is no more than a student who is cleverly conning us into doing his research for him. If so, I forsee a wonderful future in Evolutionary Biology for the lad.

Bravo, says I!

doov

Ed · 11-27-2002, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:

Ed: I think most of the water came from under the crust and from supernatural creation.

Cora: No supernatural creation required - just supernatural cooling! Ed, do tou have any idea how hot it is ten miles below the Earth's surface?

He may very well have done that.

Ed · 12-02-2002, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

Ed:
... I notice that you use linguistic terms when talking about genes, confirming my earlier post about DNA being linguistic in nature. ...

lp: So what? Does it indicate that some long-ago elf had designed the first genetic systems?

Possibly, but there is no evidence that elves exist or ever existed. But you are admitting that DNA points to some kind of intelligence?

Quote:

lp: ... One follows horses and rhinos backwards in the fossil record until their fossil records merge. Fossils can be dated with the help of the rocks that contain them, and this provides a divergence date totally independent of hypotheses about molecular-evolution rates.
Ed:
But you are assuming that their fossil records merge molecularly, but we have no DNA evidence from the supposed ancestor in the fossil record.

lp: DNA does not fossilize very well, so one has to work with whatever evidence is available. However, common ancestry is a reasonable extrapolation; what would one expect to find if one could go back in a time machine and sequence some of these creatures' genes?

I think it would shake up the status quo.

Quote:

Ed:
Also, the supposed "merging" is highly questionable. Many of the so-called horse ancestors were living at the same time and the same place as more "advanced" horses. This shows that they are probably just different species of horses.

lp: Ancestral and descendant species can coexist; Ed, your existence does not imply that your parents are now dead.

Huh? You're kidding right? I am surprised you don't know basic evolutionary biology. Parental relationships are not analogous to ancestral species relationships. According to evolutionary theory: while they don't die out immediately, generally the descendant species if it occupies the same ecological niche in the same geographical region, it replaces the ancestral species rather quickly in relative geologic time.

Quote:

lp: Being able to unconsciously model one's environment does not prove nearly as much as Ed seems to think it does, because the capability can be selected for if it can emerge.
Ed:
Thats the problem, how can it emerge?

lp: That question will be difficult to answer until we discover the mechanisms of how environment-modeling works. However, there is evidence of that in nonhuman species, like chimpanzees. Chimps can perform "insight learning", in which they pause for awhile, and then implement a solution. A reasonable hypothesis is that they were working out that solution in their minds as they paused.

But where did it come from to get into chimps?

Quote:

lp: Ed, the worldwide version of Noah's Flood was discredited in the early 19th century, well before Charles Darwin published his magnum opus. It was discredited not out of an attitude of "I know that the Christian God is 100% real and I've decided to declare war on It", but because it did not fit the evidence.
Ed:
No, it was primarily rejected because if the Christian God was real then they would have to be accountable for how they spend their time and secondarily because the evidence did not fit their preconceived ideas of what the evidence should be.

lp: Evidence that Ed presents for his view: {}

Understanding of human nature because I am human myself and experience in the world of academia and debating well educated atheists.

Quote:

Ed:
... sometimes water in combination with other factors does weird things.

lp: Like hide all evidence of a flood?

No, only some of it. Ask a hydrologist.

Doubting Didymus · 12-02-2002, 07:26 PM

lpetrich · 12-02-2002, 08:45 PM

What's with the carrots, O DD?

Quote:

Ed:
... I notice that you use linguistic terms when talking about genes, confirming my earlier post about DNA being linguistic in nature. ...

lp: So what? Does it indicate that some long-ago elf had designed the first genetic systems?
Ed:
Possibly, but there is no evidence that elves exist or ever existed. But you are admitting that DNA points to some kind of intelligence?

First, I admit no such thing. What looks like "language" is essentially a mechanical process, like running a printing press or a copying machine.

And second, why be hyperskeptical about the existence of such elves?

Quote:

Ed:
... According to evolutionary theory: while they don't die out immediately, generally the descendant species if it occupies the same ecological niche in the same geographical region, it replaces the ancestral species rather quickly in relative geologic time.

Except that a descendant species need not compete with its ancestor species.

Quote:

lp: ... Chimps can perform "insight learning", in which they pause for awhile, and then implement a solution. A reasonable hypothesis is that they were working out that solution in their minds as they paused.
Ed:
But where did it come from to get into chimps?

One would have to understand the mechanism of insight learning before one can get a clue as to its evolution. But if it is due to some immaterial mind-stuff, then chimps must have it also. So look long upon a chimp -- does it also have a soul?

(Snipped: Ed's stuff about rejecting Noah's Flood just so one can thumb one's nose at the Xian God)

Ed, I suggest that you go over to <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org</a> and see if you can refute that site's refutations of Flood Geology.

Quote:

Ed:
... sometimes water in combination with other factors does weird things.

lp: Like hide all evidence of a flood?
Ed:
No, only some of it. Ask a hydrologist.

And what am I supposed to learn from one?

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

Duvenoy · 12-03-2002, 06:37 AM

Quote:

What's with the carrots, O DD?

Careful guys. First it's the carrot, then the stick.

doov

Doubting Didymus · 12-03-2002, 01:43 PM

Quote:

What's with the carrots, O DD?

Your guess is as good as mine. What's with Ed?

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

11-24-2002, 05:53 PM	#604
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Hey ps418, I am all but convinced that our friend Ed is no more than a student who is cleverly conning us into doing his research for him. If so, I forsee a wonderful future in Evolutionary Biology for the lad. Bravo, says I! doov

12-02-2002, 07:26 PM	#607
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.