Ed

Whoaaa! Calm down Oolon. No need to get all worked up. I was just trying to make a point about him making a dogmatic statement and not backing it up. He just made the flat statement "there was no Tower of Babel incident".
How does he know? The only way he could know such a thing with such certainty is if he was omniscient. And in my opinion you can't say something is a scientific fact unless it has been demonstrated empirically and common descent has not been, therefore it is a scientific theory.

[b] No need for the personal attack, my ancestral homeland fellow! The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for the Christian God. There is nothing magical about combining carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, with time that can produce life or personal beings.

GunnerJ

ARRRGG!! YOU STUPID SLUG-HUMPER! This is the WHOLE GODDAMN POINT of this discussion: to prove that the Universe, if it had a First Cause, must have been created by YOUR GOD. You cannot ASSUME that premise in order to support other premises used to support it, you asscrack! Why the HELL are we still talking to this idiot!?

Sorry guys, but as each one of his posts come out, I am INFURIATED by his continued practice of using already debunked assertions (which werenever given any argument to support them in the first place) to support other unevidenced bullshit assertions, and then using THOSE debunked, unevidenced, bullshit assertions to prop up OTHER debunked, unevidenced, bullshit assertions. I am the only one that sees the pattern here???

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

Ed

While it may not be the traditional reading, as a protestant I don't place as much weight on tradition as my Catholic brothers. Read my R.E. Lee example above. I think I understand the issues fairly well.

Ed

Wow! Very nice photos, Oolon. As someone with some experience in vertebrate anatomy, it is rather obvious that A,B, and C are apes while the rest are humans, mostly ancient humans given their slightly diverse skull structures. Ancient humans were more variable in form than moderns.

RufusAtticus

I'm curious, what criteria did you use to make this decision? Other people, including creationists, might come to different conclusions, do you think you can defend yours? Did you stop to consider that humans are apes?

-RvFvS

Ed

See my R.E. Lee example above. Ancient genealogies were not as concerned with precision as modern genealogies but rather were usually concerned with who is famous or great in the genealogy and sometimes generations did get skipped.

Quote:

Jack: a vapor canopy would have been crushing... Ed: Well maybe it came from beneath the earth's crust. lp: Or maybe it didn't happen. Big subterranean caverns necessary would collapse under their own weight, since nearly all rocks are more dense than water.

They did eventually collapse that is what released the water. But there is water under parts of the crust today and it doesnt collapse.

Quote:

Jack: no "Tower of Babel" incident... Ed: How do you know? Were you there? lp: What positive evidence is there for the Tower of Babel incident outside of the Bible?

I am not sure.

Quote:

lp: Natural languages form a tree-like pattern; this pattern is associated with the movements of various peoples and the establishment of empires. Although much vocabulary can be borrowed, and often is, there is a "core" of a language that is much more seldom borrowed -- the grammar and the basic vocabulary. And when one compares these core features, one can construct family trees. And to date, several big language families have been identified, some with reconstructed vocabulary that places their origin well before the Bible's more reliable history. The best-studied of the big families, Indo-European, has a reconstructed ancestral vocabulary that includes words for dog, horse, cow, bull, sheep, and pig, but not cat or donkey; the lack of a word for donkey suggests some distance from the Middle East. In technology, they had words for wheel and axle and for conveying by vehicle; however, they had only one word for metal, suggesting a lack of familiarity. Words for "iron" in the recorded IE languages are multiple inventions and borrowings, suggesting a later acquaintance. And the Bible features lots of metal stuff, including iron stuff. For more, see The American Heritage Dictionary, which contains not only a lot of ancestral-Indo-European info, but also ancestral-Semitic info.

You probably need to go further back into the past before you can discover the original single language.

Quote:

Ed on Pasteur: His experiment was the first step in demonstrating that life cannot come from nonlife. lp: But why is Pasteur good and Darwin bad?

I never said that one was good and one was bad.

Quote:

Ed: Ok, give empirical evidence of helium, hydrogen, and various natural interactions producing a personal being. lp: Ed, what would you consider evidence, short of doing an intensive survey in a time machine?

Making a eukaryotic cells in the lab from non-living matter in an early environment would help the case. But since we may never know exactly what the early earth was like without a time machine, we may very well need one to truly convince me because any other environment would have been designed by the person conducting the experiment.

RufusAtticus

Ed, I don't see how this would prove anything since no theory in evolutionry biology claims that eukaryotic cells came from non-living matter, unless you consider prokaryotes as non-living matter.

-RvFvS

lpetrich

Evidence offered for that contention: {}

Also, it suggests that the Bible was sloppily written.

Pure idiocy. That does not explain why the caverns stayed in place before Noah's Flood.

Also, that crustal water is in cracks in rock and between rock grains, and not big caverns.

Good to see some humility.

A LOT farther back than ancestral Indo-European and ancestral Semitic; I once compared their pronoun systems and found little in common.

ps418

Now, like Rufus, I request that you please explain which 'obvious' criteria your classification above is based upon. Which skeletal features are you using to diagnose "human"?

Thanks,

Patrick

Coragyps

Ed said: Could you tell me where this water under parts of the crust is?