The Flood

[LittleNipper]

But you missed the point. There is data in support of evolution. There is data in support of all the mechanisms of evolution (genetics and DNA etc.)

But there is no data in support of angel and demon interbreeding programs with humans.

Are they in the same species? Were they before the flood but not after? Doesn't that mean ONE Of them evolved into a different species and can therefore no longer interbreed as you propose they could before the Flood?

What data do you have for this?

There is data that can be twisted to support anything. It again comes down to what are you willing to accept and why?

 

[Contracelsus]

Fossils.

How do fossils support a global flood? Why are fish fossils often found the lowest in the rock strata (oldest vertebrates) while horses and humans much higher up in the rock strata (younger)? (Gross Generalization, but applicable).

Were the fish unable to swim in the flood waters but Mr. Ed was?

 

[Contracelsus]

There is data that can be twisted to support anything. It again comes down to what are you willing to accept and why?

You aren't going to try to support your guess are you? You just want people to accept it because you thought it up.

That doesn't sound very scientific.

And it makes me wonder how much YOU believe it if you can't even try to support it.

Oh well.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

How do fossils support a global flood? Why are fish fossils often found the lowest in the rock strata (oldest vertebrates) while horses and humans much higher up in the rock strata (younger)? (Gross Generalization, but applicable).

Were the fish unable to swim in the flood waters but Mr. Ed was?

No it was about running away from the flood as it came. Fish could run faster than Horses, and magnolia trees can outrun ferns.

Hope that solves the problem

 

[LittleNipper]

The fact that fossils exist supports absolutely nothing. it is how the fossils are organized that one must examine. Even AIG admits the simple to complex all the way up the geologic column.

Fossils are nearly always the result of water and mud burial, except in a few cases ---- bugs in amber as an example. We have no real way of knowing what the population was for any species alive at the time of the FLOOD. Scientists can only guess. Was it 10, 100, 1000. Who knows? So one cannot hang one's hat on geological scales, etc. There simply is not enough information.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Fossils are nearly always the result of water and mud burial, except in a few cases ---- bugs in amber as an example. We have no real way of knowing what the population was for any species alive at the time of the FLOOD. Scientists can only guess. Was it 10, 100, 1000. Who knows? So one cannot hang one's hat on geological scales, etc. There simply is not enough information.

Yet there is enough information to prove that it is 6000 years old and no older

 

[Naraoia]

Evolutionary theory may explain why a species cares for its young- those that didn't, tended to die out. But as for other ethical phenomena, I'm not so sure- wouldn't the law of the jungle prevailed, for example?

What do you mean by 'law of the jungle'?

I would suggest these statistics are suspect- where did you get them anyway? Like, about 85-90% of human beings admit to believing in a Supreme Being- but only a small percentage are Christians that actually practice what they preach.

Yeah, a source for the statistics would be nice. And the methods of collecting such data aren't the best - I heartily dislike asking people about what they are like, because I know from my own answers to such questionnaires that I either don't know what I'm like, don't fit any category presented, or am inclined to paint myself in what I perceive as slightly more favourable colours than my real ones. I doubt most people perform any better in filling surveys.

Also, I suspect that the strikingly low ratio of atheists among prison-dwellers isn't in a causal relationship with their atheism at all - for example, if the proportion of atheists is higher among the more educated and most criminals come from the less educated strata of society, you'll see a disproportionately low number of atheists in prison. And conversely with various sorts of theists. Or perhaps many people seek a god after (because) they are imprisoned. So many factors come into play in this sort of investigation, it's really difficult to tease them apart. And I'm not even sure that the difference in the percentages of Christians in the general population and the prison population is significant.

On the other hand, if Christianity somehow prevented people from being bad guys then the expectation would indeed be a disproportionately low number of Christians in the prison population (unless there is widespread post-imprisonment converting) - of which these stats show quite the opposite.

BTW, this:

[...]but only a small percentage are Christians that actually practice what they preach.

stands accused of being a No True Scotsman.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

stands accused of being a No True Scotsman.

I don't think so, he was merely saying x number are hypocritical. Not that they weren't Christian, they were simply not living out their Christianity.

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

What do you mean by 'law of the jungle'?

Yeah, a source for the statistics would be nice. And the methods of collecting such data aren't the best - I heartily dislike asking people about what they are like, because I know from my own answers to such questionnaires that I either don't know what I'm like, don't fit any category presented, or am inclined to paint myself in what I perceive as slightly more favourable colours than my real ones. I doubt most people perform any better in filling surveys.

Also, I suspect that the strikingly low ratio of atheists among prison-dwellers isn't in a causal relationship with their atheism at all - for example, if the proportion of atheists is higher among the more educated and most criminals come from the less educated strata of society, you'll see a disproportionately low number of atheists in prison. And conversely with various sorts of theists. Or perhaps many people seek a god after (because) they are imprisoned. So many factors come into play in this sort of investigation, it's really difficult to tease them apart. And I'm not even sure that the difference in the percentages of Christians in the general population and the prison population is significant.

On the other hand, if Christianity somehow prevented people from being bad guys then the expectation would indeed be a disproportionately low number of Christians in the prison population (unless there is widespread post-imprisonment converting) - of which these stats show quite the opposite.

BTW, this:
stands accused of being a No True Scotsman.

Law of the Jungle = natural selection.

 

[kidoncoathangers]

Law of the Jungle = natural selection.

Not really, no. Natural selection is the process by which the GENE survives and is passed on, the "law of the jungle" is the individual surviving.

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

Not really, no. Natural selection is the process by which the GENE survives and is passed on, the "law of the jungle" is the individual surviving.

But the one who is surviving is selected. so they are one and the same.

 

[kidoncoathangers]

But the one who is surviving is selected. so they are one and the same.

No, no they're not.

For example, a mutation that sacrificed one's reproductive organs for twice the muscle mass would be beneficial in a "law of the jungle" system. This isn't so for natural selection.

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

No, no they're not.

For example, a mutation that sacrificed one's reproductive organs for twice the muscle mass would be beneficial in a "law of the jungle" system. This isn't so for natural selection.

That doesn't even make sense, it is an impossible scenario.

 

[kidoncoathangers]

Not necessarily, and it was a hypothetical to illustrate my point that the "law of the jungle" and natural selection aren't the same thing.

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

Not necessarily, and it was a hypothetical to illustrate my point that the "law of the jungle" and natural selection aren't the same thing.

You actually think that could happen?

 

[kidoncoathangers]

You actually think that could happen?

It TECHNICALLY could happen, but it was a HYPOTHETICAL INSTANCE to help illustrate a point. It doesn't matter if it could happen or not.

 

[Vene]

It TECHNICALLY could happen, but it was a HYPOTHETICAL INSTANCE to help illustrate a point. It doesn't matter if it could happen or not.

It's a very unlikely situation where the organism lacks reproductive organs. But I will say this much. For a female member of a species to be sterile is a survival advantage as she doesn't waste her time and energy growing a newborn. But this will not allow her to pass these genes on to future generations. But for this to be in conjunction with another mutation that helps her survive is very unlikely.

 

[kidoncoathangers]

It's a very unlikely situation where the organism lacks reproductive organs. But I will say this much. For a female member of a species to be sterile is a survival advantage as she doesn't waste her time and energy growing a newborn. But this will not allow her to pass these genes on to future generations. But for this to be in conjunction with another mutation that helps her survive is very unlikely.

Yes, almost infinitesimally unlikely, but that isn't the point. It was a hypothetical used to illustrate a point.

 

[Servant222]

What do you mean by 'law of the jungle'?

What I meant was that some behaviors that help a species survive can be explained by evolutionary processes, but that ethical phenomena, such as whether a person is altruistic, patriotic, etc. cannot be explained by the "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest". Other phenomena of the mind- such as being passionately in love with someone, marveling at the beauty of a sunset or an alpine flower, appreciating the unfathomable order of a Vivaldi symphony, or marveling at the art of a Vincent Van Gogh, are all matters that I maintain cannot be explained in a rationale scientific way, and therefore suggest the working of God.

A great symphony is especially interesting- obviously, there is a phenomenal order involved, and yet nobody but the composer can understand that order and appreciate how it is able to captivate audiences hundreds of years later.

BTW, this:
stands accused of being a No True Scotsman.

What I meant is that the U.S. may be considered a "Christian Nation", but the number of people who actually subscribe to even the most basic beliefs of Christianity are much fewer, and those who actually practice their faith (attend church, tithe, stay married, etc.) are far fewer still.

 

[Vene]

What I meant was that some behaviors that help a species survive can be explained by evolutionary processes, but that ethical phenomena, such as whether a person is altruistic, patriotic, etc. cannot be explained by the "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest".

And they shouldn't be. That would be like basing your morality on the law of conservation of energy/mass.

Other phenomena of the mind- such as being passionately in love with someone, marveling at the beauty of a sunset or an alpine flower, appreciating the unfathomable order of a Vivaldi symphony, or marveling at the art of a Vincent Van Gogh, are all matters that I maintain cannot be explained in a rationale scientific way, and therefore suggest the working of God.

*cough*God of the Gaps*cough*

A great symphony is especially interesting- obviously, there is a phenomenal order involved, and yet nobody but the composer can understand that order and appreciate how it is able to captivate audiences hundreds of years later.

I would argue that great art goes beyond the artist him/herself. Interpretation is very important. But I don't have any good evidence for it and don't mind if you want to reject this idea.