The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[Sidhe]

Don't ask me, I always seem to do some research about a minor point and then end up defending my sources at length? <Insert joke about the Spasnish inquistion of your choice>

Me defending the Jewish and Christian faith the irony; If you want we can take it to another thread or PM?

Anyway blame Iron Duck he started it

 

[The Last Conformist]

Sorry but saying the vague text of Genesis denotes some wierd pre genesis interpritation that you have thought up is far from proof, I'd like to remind you though, that when you have time, the burden of proof is on you to despute the establishments beliefs.

What on earth makes you think I've thought it up? My only original contribution in this debate is that Asherah may be related to the sons of God of Gen. 6.

The only argument you've got in favour of your position is that it's adhered to by people who are programmatically committed to taking an ahistorical approach to the subject. This is not merely methodologically unsound, but outright wrong, because we know that the Yahwism of the pre-Exilic period (from which much of the material in the Pentateuch stems) was different from that of Hasmonean and Roman periods, and still more from Christianity. I've, in contrast, given internal reasons not to think the sons of god were conceived of as fallen angels by the authors of Genesis.

 

[The Last Conformist]

This text, what makes you think he didn't exist?

Gen. 5, pretty much.

I mean come on, he's supposed to've been a 7th generation descendant of Adam, the great-grandfather of Noah, and to've lived for 365 years. Does that sound like a historical person to you?!?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Might I ask what the hell this has to do with the topic?

Considering that Sidhe apparently believes in the historical existence of Noah's great granddaddy, it doesn't seem quite off-topic to me ...

 

[Perfection]

Don't ask me, I always seem to do some research about a minor point and then end up defending my sources at length? <Insert joke about the Spasnish inquistion of your choice>

Me defending the Jewish and Christian faith the irony; If you want we can take it to another thread or PM?

Anyway blame Iron Duck he started it

Well, unless Iron Duck can come up with how this effects this thread then I suggest you folks take it up in a new one.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'm just going to have to play devil's advocate here.

Remeber how this thread was about Creationism and the theory of evolution? Well, does anyone want to explain to me how if an animal suddenly evolves into a new species, it can reproduce with a member of the old species from which it came?

(PS I know the answer, but can we get back on track?)

 

[Masquerouge]

I'm just going to have to play devil's advocate here.

Remeber how this thread was about Creationism and the theory of evolution? Well, does anyone want to explain to me how if an animal suddenly evolves into a new species, it can reproduce with a member of the old species from which it came?

(PS I know the answer, but can we get back on track?)

maybe because "suddenly" is actually not so sudden ?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Animals don't normally "suddenly" evolve into a new species, so the question doesn't apply.

Such instant speciation is, however, common among plants (via polyploidy), and generally severs reproductive contact with the parent species. Something similar seems to have happened in the evolution of sturgeons, certain frogs, and a few other animals.

Feel better?

 

[ironduck]

Well, unless Iron Duck can come up with how this effects this thread then I suggest you folks take it up in a new one.

Um..

I didn't go into a big discussion on this, I simply asked if any creationist could tell me about these mythological giants fit in. Perhaps they could explain how they could exist after the flood. Perhaps they could explain why there are no fossils from them when there are plenty of fossils from animals and humans.

Is that really off topic?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Indeed, individuals don't evolve into species at all. Species is rather an arbitrary concept, it means (I think, more or less) a group that can interbreed. So you could have offspring that can't interbreed with all the members of its species, but with some; would it then be a new species? It is a gradual process that can't be defined until several generations have passed.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Indeed, individuals don't evolve into species at all. Species is rather an arbitrary concept, it means (I think, more or less) a group that can interbreed. So you could have offspring that can't interbreed with all the members of its species, but with some; would it then be a new species? It is a gradual process that can't be defined until several generations have passed.

Did you read my answer at all?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Did you read my answer at all?

Yes, I just thought that sometimes the process works a little different is all.

 

[The Last Conformist]

As far as animals are concerned, sudden speciation is at best of very rare occurence, but it's, as said, not too uncommon in plants.

Then there's speciation in asexually reproducing species, which a whole other kettle of fish ...

 

[Perfection]

Um..

I didn't go into a big discussion on this, I simply asked if any creationist could tell me about these mythological giants fit in. Perhaps they could explain how they could exist after the flood. Perhaps they could explain why there are no fossils from them when there are plenty of fossils from animals and humans.

Is that really off topic?

Perhaps not, but really it seems like you're putting words in the creationist's mouths.

 

[ironduck]

Perhaps not, but really it seems like you're putting words in the creationist's mouths.

Probably.. I guess I just got bored waiting for any creationists to say anything

I'll stop spamming until they do.

 

[carlosMM]

Heh, that was my high school biology textbook. I read the thing cover to cover! I wish I still had acess to a copy.

y'know, they have so many of them at the bookstroes that they sell 'em!

 

[carlosMM]

While Carlos of course is quite right that nobody accepts the traditional Reptilia as a valid clade, it should perhaps be pointed out you can find cladistic taxa with the same name in the literature, usually defined something like turtles + vipers + sparrows. As far as modern forms are concerned, this would be the same as Synapsida.

Hopefully, this isn't the definition Diablodelmar was thinking of, because then he'd be asserting that birds don't have bird-like lungs.

well, indeed, but for THAT clade there is already a well-established name, so no need to use the (confusing) term 'reptiles' at all

 

[carlosMM]

Evolutionists ask a lot of questions but answer very few.

Stop asking me for definitions ok and just work it out for yourself!

read: you can't be bothered to learn the stuff, you just prefer to believe whatever you chose, *** the facts

 

[warpus]

I'm not sure that that is really true. Some religions logically cannot be true because they make claims that are inherently contradictory, or condradict definite evidence. Some people say that God would rather you worship a false god well than Him badly.

Even if a religion contains beliefs that are contridactory, the adherents of said faith will ignore this and go on worshipping.. If religions that contain contradictions cannot be true, then no religion in the world is true.

As for Gods, I have yet to hear a good argument as to why a God would want to be worshipped in the first place.

 

[El_Machinae]

He doesn't want to be worshipped, He wants to be loved.

"Love the Lord thy God ..."

(I can't see how it works a commandment, though)