Spirituality
14 Feb 06
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by OmnislashWell said!
That's a rather extravagant claim there my friend. If you wish to make the argument that the rather biased evaluation of a small sample of data (and yes, I consider it small in the great equation) should hold some water against the Genesis creation account, you are walking straight into fallacy (in my opinion).
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I wi ...[text shortened]... thing. We are both merely observers attempting to understand.
Best Regards,
Omnislash 🙂
DF
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by JadeMantisPeripheral isolates of any species is the thing to grasp if you actually do want to understand how new species arise. "Natura non facit saltum" was the classic dictum that nature does not make leaps implying a solely gradualistic mode for evolution.
This would be micro-evolution. I don't think there is much debate over this. It is macro-evolution that is questioned by many. Perhaps once H5N1 evolves into a kind of bird we can talk again...
We now know that macroevolutionary events appear to happen in an episodic pattern rather than this exclusively slow gradualistic pattern. The Cambrian explosion and the laying down of all the major body plans (bauplan) for the subsequent radiation of metazoans is a good example of a macroevolutionary event with just these properties. Climate crisis or catastrophism appears to wipe out large numbers of species leaving new niches to be exploited is a recurring theme in the story of how life evolved on this planet.
Gould and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium model is often contrasted against the old Darwinian idea of phylectic gradualism but this is not a problem with the accepted fact that macroevolution has occurred merely a refinement of how these macroevolutionary events took place.
The creationists have of course seized on this to play to a scientifically uneducated crowd as catastrophism appears to atavistically feed into the psyche of these folk. Punctuated equilibrium was a development of Mayr's models of allopatric and sympatric speciation events where geographic isolation is crucial to how new species arise. Inbreeding and the accumulation of genes through consanguineous matings and the presence of rare alleles in new combinations very likely plays a major role in the genetics of how new species arise by deconstructing complex genotypes and regulatory/transcriptional networks unfurling new developmental programmes. This is very likely fatal in most instances but when selection favours a viable and reproducing entity by this mechanism it is destined to propagate further and on and on and over eons we begin to see how the original replicator of a self-replicating nucleic acid species could give rise to a sequoia, paramyxoviruses and apes all from a common ancestor in a unbroken ever branching tree.
A large interbreeding population has a homogenising effect however over geological deep time isolated populations can develop properties of "incipient species" and eventually become reproductively isolated and incapable of being homogenised back into the parental bauplan.
A wealth of evidence supports the "Out of Africa" model for human evolution. Educated people all accept evolution exists and we evolved from a primate-like ancestor. This is the greatest story humans know in my opinion. Again I go through life thinking science is how the heavens go and religion how to go heaven if that suits you. The essential thing is not to step on each others toes and Gould put this forward nicely in the concept of NOMA = Non-Overlapping MAgisteria.
Misrepresentations of this healthy, interesting and important debate on the origins of species by ill-informed creationists are not helpful.
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseProve it.
Because Chuck Norris is a normal human who couldn't even create swamp gas with the snap of his fingers. The idea is absurd. If, instead of Chuck Norris, we had "X", who snapped God into existence; then I would be asking for proof rather than ridiculing.
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI have it on good authority that Chuck Norris has recently mailed you a roundhouse kick. Be very careful opening your mail for the next few days! 😉
Because Chuck Norris is a normal human who couldn't even create swamp gas with the snap of his fingers. The idea is absurd. If, instead of Chuck Norris, we had "X", who snapped God into existence; then I would be asking for proof rather than ridiculing.
TheSkipper
Legal Disclaimer: For those of you with no sense of humor the above message is a joke. TheSkipper does not know Chuck Norris and has no actual knowledge of what Mr. Norris sends in the mail. While TheSkipper does have a very effective roundhouse kick of his own he would never attempt to pass it off as one from Mr. Norris. Furthermore, The Skipper does not know how to send a roundhouse kick via the USPS so if Mr. Halitose should happen to receive one in the next few days it could not possibly have been from TheSkipper. If Mr. Halitose receives an authentic Chuck Norris roundhouse kick in the mail please know that it is merely coincidence. Thank you-
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by TheSkipper😀
I have it on good authority that Chuck Norris has recently mailed you a roundhouse kick. Be very careful opening your mail for the next few days! 😉
TheSkipper
Legal Disclaimer: For those of you with no sense of humor the above message is a joke. TheSkipper does not know Chuck Norris and has no actual knowledge of what Mr. Norris sends in the mail ...[text shortened]... c Chuck Norris roundhouse kick in the mail please know that it is merely coincidence. Thank you-
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by KnightWulfeI don't have a philosophical need to prove it. By definition God is a uncreated, omnipotent being. Its an a priori assumption in theology.
Halitose - prove that God was not created. You cannot even prove he exists....how can you expect to prove that he was not created?
C'mon....I would love to hear how you explain it...
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou cannot prove it. It has nothing to do with a philosophical need.
I don't have a philosophical need to prove it. By definition God is a uncreated, omnipotent being. Its an a priori assumption in theology.
That is a cop out.
It is not a priori assumption in Theology. Check your ancient religions such as the Greek gods, the Norse gods, the Egyptian Gods, the Babylonian gods, the Chisene gods, the Indian gods and even the Native American gods....
NONE of these assume that fact. IN FACT, the gods were created and even died in some of these theologies....
Thanks for proving that you are just full of it.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by KnightWulfeWhat do you think about "The Kalam Cosmological Argument"?
You cannot prove it. It has nothing to do with a philosophical need.
That is a cop out.
It is not a priori assumption in Theology. Check your ancient religions such as the Greek gods, the Norse gods, the Egyptian Gods, the Babylonian gods, the Chisene gods, the Indian gods and even the Native American gods....
NONE of these assume that fact. IN FACT ...[text shortened]... nd even died in some of these theologies....
Thanks for proving that you are just full of it.
16 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfeYou're mistaking mythology for theology. Just out of interest, since you seem to be quite the classical scholar, who/what created the first Greek gods: Chaos, Nyx, Eros, Uranus, Gaia, the Titans and Zeus?
You cannot prove it. It has nothing to do with a philosophical need.
That is a cop out.
It is not a priori assumption in Theology. Check your ancient religions such as the Greek gods, the Norse gods, the Egyptian Gods, the Babylonian gods, the Chisene gods, the Indian gods and even the Native American gods....
NONE of these assume that fact. IN FACT ...[text shortened]... nd even died in some of these theologies....
Thanks for proving that you are just full of it.
Er... I guess you didn't understand what I meant by "philosophical need". If there was a greater deity than the Christian God, then he/she/it has been very enigmatic, there's no concrete proof of their existence.
Also, by definition, the Christian God is uncreated, omnipotent, etc -- something accepted a priori, a theological axiom. It's like me asking you to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without any presuppositions.
Thanks for proving that you are just full of it.
Hostility huh? Having a bad day?
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou're mistaking mythology for theology. Just out of interest, since you seem to be quite the classical scholar, who/what created the first Greek gods: Chaos, Nyx, Eros, Uranus, Gaia, the Titans and Zeus?
I would disagree. They are both theology and mythology, by definition. For those who do not believe in the Christian God, Christianity is a mythology.
As to your question, it really depends upon what story you read. Do you prefer Hesiod or Homer?
Er... I guess you didn't understand what I meant by "philosophical need". If there was a greater deity than the Christian God, then he/she/it has been very enigmatic, there's no concrete proof of their existence.
That would be better defined as a religious need, not a philosphical one. Also, there is no concrete proof that the Christian God exists.
Also, by definition, the Christian God is uncreated, omnipotent, etc -- something accepted a priori, a theological axiom. It's like me asking you to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without any presuppositions.
Yes, on this I will agree - the Christian God is defined as such.
Hostility huh? Having a bad day?
Nope. 🙂
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by KnightWulfeDo you prefer Hesiod or Homer?
[b]You're mistaking mythology for theology. Just out of interest, since you seem to be quite the classical scholar, who/what created the first Greek gods: Chaos, Nyx, Eros, Uranus, Gaia, the Titans and Zeus?
I would disagree. They are both theology and mythology, by definition. For those who do not believe in the Christian God, Christianity is a m ...[text shortened]... ristian[/i] God is defined as such.
Hostility huh? Having a bad day?
Nope. 🙂[/b]
Let's hear both.
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseIf I remember my Hesiod mythology correctly everything originated with Gaia and Ouranos (who was husband and son to her), but it some translations, Ouranos is the son of Ather (Aether?) who was the son of Erberus and Nix.
[b]Do you prefer Hesiod or Homer?
Let's hear both.[/b]
Now, Homer cuts to the chase and really does not cover much before Cronos and the Titans, then leads into the Olympian gods usurping the Titan throne...
It has been a bit since I studied Greek myth.
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by KnightWulfeYou're being as obfuscatory as I am. 😀 So which one is it, were the Greek gods created or not?
If I remember my Hesiod mythology correctly everything originated with Gaia and Ouranos (who was husband and son to her), but it some translations, Ouranos is the son of Ather (Aether?) who was the son of Erberus and Nix.
Now, Homer cuts to the chase and really does not cover much before Cronos and the Titans, then leads into the Olympian gods usurping the Titan throne...
It has been a bit since I studied Greek myth.
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI pointed this out to some of my in-laws (They were astounded that I didn't also worship their mental idol.). I made the mistake however of also pointing out that light existed before the sun and stars. Triumphantly, they decided there on the spot that the mysterious light from Day 1 must have fed the plants. When I asked them what sort of light this must have been if not sunlight, they retreated to the Argument from God's Mysterious Ways.
nope, but i'll do it tomorrow. Suffice to say the sun came into existance before land plants. (that's a hint btw)
They had discovered a great truth about Creation: originally magic plants lived off of magic light. It made for a beautiful 15-minute epiphony. Unfortunately, once our conversation was over, they had no more need of magic light and plants and soon forgot their great discovery, which is okay since I doubt that they really believed a word they were saying anyway.