lpetrich

I'd be surprised if Ed knows what a mitochondrion is or how genetic drift works. Because all existing ones having a single ancestor at some point in time is a result of genetic drift.

There have been estimates of what is the minimum population necessary to allow Human Leukocyte Antigens to retain their diversity (these indicate to white blood cells that a cell is not to be attacked, and are selected for diversity as a result of parasites adapting to resemble one or another of these). Geneticist Francesco Ayala and his colleagues estimate that the HLA complex diverged over the last 30-60 million years, and that humanity's ancestral populations have seldom gone below about 1000 individuals.

Also, Ed's remarks about the Bible are evasive. Why isn't he honest enough to acknowledge errors in it? I'm willing to acknowledge that "virgin birth" is a misnomer for some legendary divine impregnations, and that some of Lord Raglan's hero criteria are probably incorrect or misleadingly stated. But I don't see anything similar from Ed about his favorite book.

Ed is very prissy, isn't he? A vapor canopy would have pushed the Earth's atmospheric pressure way up, and where in the Earth's crust would that water have come from?

Ed ought to go over to Evolution/Creation and write a point-by-point rebuttal to the Flood-Geology criticisms.

Ed has not told us where "modern linguistics" is supposed to be claiming that. Yes, I want a chapter-and-verse quote.

Like how am I supposed to have failed?

And how does one determine that?

Poor Ed has never heard of gene duplication and polyploidy.

However, Ed's jumping from position to position is very evasive and self-contradictory. One wonders if he'd claim that Jesus Christ was a myth if that would help him win an argument.

If I was an omnipotent being and that was something I cared about, then I'd ensure that all of humanity was physically incapable of misbehavior. From this perspective, what is so great about free will if it leads to sin? Also, consider what Heaven is supposed to be like -- does anyone ever commit sins in Heaven? If Heaven is a sin-free realm, then that demonstrates that such a realm is feasible.

Stupid. I'd make everybody physically capable of misbehaving.

Ed

No, they knew who he was and who he represented. And they were probably teenagers not little kids. The reason that you are not punished immediately is because the ancient hebrews were held to a higher standard since they were God's chosen people.

Quote:

Ed: No women were taken as playthings by hebrew soldiers. They became wives of hebrew soldiers because being a single woman in ancient times was basically an invitation to be raped or dying from starvation. Rim: Wow. Just stunning. One wonders why god wasn't so concerned with women being single and alone when he ordered the Hebrew soldiers to massacre the women's families and friends. More half-assed thinking from the cog-dis mind.

In the long run their life would be much better in a more morally advanced society. Women were treated better in ancient Israel than other societies at the time.

Quote:

Ed: So by becoming their wives they were given safe and secure lives with food and the chance to have children in a more humane society than the one they had lived in. Rim: And I'm sure those women were just thrilled to have the "privilage" of marrying the murderous bastards who just killed their families and destroyed their homeland. They must have lept into the arms of their "liberators!" Say, did the term, "keep them for yourselves," which is what God instructed the Hebrews to do with these virgin girls, mean "marry" back then? I've learned soemthing new today! What a "humane" society those lucky girls got to live in!

Of course, there would have been some resistance at first, but as I said above in ancient times a woman who had a husband was in a very priviledged position. Also, many probably saw the superiority of the Jewish society. Yes, later on in the passage that I assume you are referring to they mention that if the men decide to divorce them they cannot sell them as slaves.

Quote:

Ed: And part of what makes you a person is a mind, will and conscience. Now do you understand? Rim: I'll bet Ed has a tough time keeping up witht he flow of and argument, as he does all things that require the expediture of mental energy. To refresh him, let's look at this sequence of replies: Ed: "Personal has two meanings... it relates to a being it is something that has a mind, will, conscience, emotions, and etc. " Me: "...what, exactly, does the term 'etc.' refer to?" Ed: "Etc. refers to the other things that make you, you. " Me: "So vague and mysterious!" Ed: "What's wrong? You don't know who you are? Is what makes you you, vague and mysterious?" Me: " No, your defining personal in such a obfuscated and shallow way is 'vague and mysterious.' You really think including 'what makes you you' in the definition of 'personal' is a logical argument against the 'personal arising from the impersonal?'" Ed: "No, I am just trying to help you to understand what a person is. You are a person and therefore what makes you you is also what makes a person." Rim: It seems that Ed's definition of "personal" is "whatever make a person, a person." I've long since put away any hope of him seeing what circular, illogical bullshit his arguments are, but it should be painfully obvious to any lurkers now.

Just because we cannot fully define something (you are right personhood is somewhat mysterious)
does not make it circular or illogical.

Quote:

Ed: Yes, and inferences about the cause of the universe are based on evidence from the universe. Rim: ...which, in spite of your willful ignorance of how the Universe is the limit of our observational abilities, you have yet to provide. This becomes tiresome, Ed. Let me suggest that your replies to me be actual logical arguments, not pithy one-liner assertions.

I have used logical arguments, the Law of Causality and its corollary, the Law of Sufficient Cause.

Quote:

Ed: No, two rocks under a tree cannot be at the same place at the same time and in the same relationship (Law of Non-contradiction) whether or not a human is thinking about it or even whether any humans exist. Rim: Ed seems to be a bit confused here. Actually, "stunningly ignorant" is the better description. Perhaps it would do him well to look into the electromagnetic force, so he can discover what prevents two rocks from occupying the same space. Although, this would cripple his ability to argue from his own ignorant confusion of physics and logic.

It doesnt matter if it is two rocks or two atoms, the law still applies. The laws of logic are more fundamental than the laws of physics. Without the laws of logic you cannot even discover the laws of physics.

This is the end of part II of my response.

lpetrich

Ed seems very itchy and punitive. And I'm not sure I wish to get into an argument over the precise translation of some Hebrew word. Apikorus? Devnet?

Actual evidence other than the presumption of the Bible's moral perfection: {}

And I'm sure that being a Comfort Woman for the WWII Japanese armed forces was a great employment opportunity (sarcasm).

Which don't really say much -- can one determine a priori what is and is not "sufficient cause"?

However, two waves can easily occupy the same position, and two gases can easily interpenetrate.

Ed is mistaking a property of certain physical objects for a fundamental logical principle.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Ed

I never said that an effect MUST share the properties of it's cause. I said that the cause must be sufficient to produce the effect. It just happens in the case of persons the cause does share the some of the properties of the effect.

Quote:

Ed: God has to use anthropomorphisms in order explain what he is like to humans, he is a spirit and does not have a physical body. Rim: Ed completely ignores god's instruction, yes, instruction, to Moses to look not at his face, but his ass. This is not convienient anthropomorphizing for us to understand, otherwise there'd be no danger.

Since we know from Christ and Isaiah that is God is a spirit and does not have a body, what passed by Moses was his Glory. His glory refers first and foremost to the sheer weight of the reality of his presence. But Moses would not be able to endure the spectacular purity, luminosity and reality of staring at the raw glory of God himself. So God placed his "hand" over Moses face and then lifted it to let him see the aftereffects of the passing of his glory and in fact the hebrew term used usually translated as "back" can mean aftereffects.

Quote:

Ed: I am not sure what passage you are referring to, but the part of the actual reason God may have told them to cover their latrine was to prevent disease. In addition to demonstrating that God expects absolute moral purity. And stated that the smell was an offense in order not to confuse them with a treatise on pathogens transferred from human waste. Rim: Ed ignores the simple, logical explaination to intorduce germ theory to the mythological writings of a people (and, if Jesus is any guide, a God) who considered evil spirits to be the cause of dissease.

Huh? Christ never said that evil spirits cause disease.

Quote:

Rim: The passage is Deuteronomy 23:12-14. The reason for covering the dumpings of the soldiers was not because God didn't like the smell, as I thought. It was because God was walking among them and didn't want to "see" any unclean thing. Just goes to show how easy it is to hide something from God's "sight."

No, the act of excreting waste represented sin and was therefore unclean. So by covering it you were symbolically removing your sin and uncleaness and taking it away from God's "sight".

This is the end of part III of my response.

Ed

Well its the next step after demonstrating that it is rational to believe the Christian God exists. Experience is evidence for many things. Such as how do you know your wife loves you? You know it from experiencing it.

Quote:

Ed: Ok prove it wrong. Rim: It's amazing that someone can be so blisteringly dumb as to ask someone to "disporve" something he hasn't even proven. Let's try to get this straight, numb-nuts: your assertions are not correct until proven otherwise, they must be proven before anyone has any obligation to disprove them. Arguing from ignorance and through circular means don't cut it.

They have been proven as well as almost anything. As I stated before throughout all of human history only persons have produced the personal.


[b] How could they be logically absurd when all I have used is the laws of logic?

Ed

Sometimes Christians don't act Christlike and yet God still uses them to find his truth. God can bring good out of evil.

Quote:

LP on the Talmud as stating that JC's father had a name that sounded something like the Greek word for "virgin". Ed: Thereby confirming the scriptures that there was something unusual about Christ's birth. While it doesnt confirm his virgin birth, it is evidence that the jews were trying to refute something unusual about his birth. Ed: There is big difference however, two of the gospels were written by people who actually knew and lived with him. ... lp: Says who? It's generally thought that the Gospels date some decades after when Jesus Christ had been executed, if there had been a historical Jesus Christ.

Many scholars. Even if they were written 3 to 5 decades after his death some of the disciples could have still been alive given that probably most of them were in their teens or 20s.

Quote:

Ed: ... As far as Pilate goes, one slightly out of character decision strongly influenced by his wife whose opinion he may have greatly admired doesnt qualify as totally distorting his personality. Having the Romans not stop the killing of an innocent man when they easily could have is hardly letting them off the hook. lp: Which begs the question of why the Jewish authorities had needed the Roman authorities to do their dirty work when they could simply have stoned Jesus Christ to death.

Only Roman authorities could mete out capital punishment. It was against Roman law for non-governmental entities to do so.

Quote:

LP: (one original language) Noam Chomsky claimed no such thing; he claimed that human languages have a shared "deep structure". Ed: A shared deep structure means it is very likely there was one original language especially if there was one point of origin for humans, which most of the evidence points to. lp: However, we could have some brain wiring that leads us to create this deep structure.

Yes, but as long as all humans create that structure with their brain wiring my statement still stands.


[b] Potentially, yes.

lpetrich

A grand-sounding principle that does not really state very much; it does not tell us anything about whether a cause is capable of producing an effect.

Very ingenious.

And I must say that I've known of less anthropomorphic deities.

However, in the Gospels, he is represented at performing exorcisms of wicked demons.

How is that supposed to be the case?

However, people have had experiences with many theological entities that Ed would no doubt consider fictional; how does one distinguish the real thing from a fake?

But the Universe is MUCH older than humanity, and a lot can happen in that time. Consider volcanoes. There are only two volcanoes that have ever been seen to originate in historical times, Jorillo and Paricutin, both in Mexico. Does this mean that the origins of all the other volcanoes is an unsolvable mystery?

God is a remarkably inefficient being, it would seem.

Where is that from? And I'm sure that Pilate would not have objected to the Jewish authorities stoning JC to death.

Waning Moon Conrad

Originally by Ed

<strong>But Allah is a pure unity and the universe is a diversity within a unity, therefore Allah can be eliminated as the likely cause of the universe.</strong>

But J.S. Bach was only one man (a pure unity)and his body of work is a copious amount of fugues, gigues etc within one body of work, (a diversity within a unity) therefore (drum roll now please) Bach could not have composed his music.

But J.S. Bach was only one man (a pure unity} whilst his Passacaglia in C minor is many notes forming one piece of music and hence a diversity within a unity therefore Bach could not have composed his Passacaglia in C minor.

But Bert of Morwell (east of Melbourne) is only one potter blah blah blah etc and his wheel is only one wheel blah blah etc therefore blah blah blah etc couldn't have made all of those pots etc etc blah blah.

Ed

Implausible? Hardly. If they didnt take it seriously why did they invent the typical skeptical/atheist response. Trying to explain a supernatural event with some kind of natural "explanation".

[b] If it occurred by simple biology and everybody knew it, then what would be the point in trying to counter the story.

Ed

As I stated before life is more than just complex, it is specified complexity and contains a complex linguistic code (DNA) which is only known to come from an intelligence. AI proves my point, who created AI? Intelligent personal beings of course!