As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[Astrid]

You are probably right. But if there was such a wedding, let's forget where the wine came from. The context clearly tells us that it was alcoholic wine.

Reference was to authors of genesis

 

[Occams Barber]

Are we plants as well?

I was going to say something about fruit and nuts but I didn't want to get into trouble.

OB

 

[Hans Blaster]

4) The human soul works through its functioning human body.

By which of the fundamental forces does the soul interact with the body?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The juice from grapes didn't begin to ferment until after the Flood.

QV: Noah's wine

Is that when yeast was invented?

 

[HitchSlap]

Ya ... it's called verbal plenary inspiration.

(Just in case you don't know why you're confused.)

Call it what you want, however we both know G1 is anonymous. Closing your eyes, clicking your heels and incanting ‘goddidit’ doesn’t make it so.

 

[HitchSlap]

Is that when yeast was invented?

AV has a real aversion to alcohol, and he stretches the stories to fit his myopic interpretations of scripture.

 

[o_mlly]

Any general estimate of global religious affiliations. The recent estimates are that the largest group (Christians) has an estimated 2 billion adherents out of a global population of about 7 billion. So

N(Christians) < N(humans)/2

Since other religions have non-compatible god concepts, the number of people who disagree with Christianity is larger than the number of Christians.

N(Christians) < N(non-Christians)

It's not hard.

Nope. Where's the authoritative citation? Perhaps because it does not support your conclusion.

You erroneously state that only Christians hold that God created the universe.

It's not hard to get things wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

So why aren't atheists "seriously doubting their lacks of belief"?

The honest ones do. "Intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together".
World's foremost academic Atheist changes his mind (Antony Flew)

 

[o_mlly]

... You're not alive, then you're born, then you die, then you're not alive anymore.
Pretty simple, really.

"Meaningless posts" = "Meaningless posts" + 1

 

[o_mlly]

Frankly, we don't need to be explicit about the First Principles of Philosophy to have a reasonable discussion.

In a previous post, your response indicated you do not grasp the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Without agreement on the those principles, reasonable explanations become unconstrained and become anything one can imagine or speculate.

The rest of your posts seems to show you want to escape the very debate you initiated.

 

[o_mlly]

The following lists speciation lab experiments. Results are in the "Reproductive Isolation" column, with "Pre-zygotic" or "Post-zygotic" indicating successful speciation. References are listed in the table if you don't trust Wikipedia.

Laboratory experiments of speciation - Wikipedia

Looking forward to your casual dismissal!

A summary table is inadequate to critically judge the claim that a speciation event is evidenced.

Take from the references given, the lab experiment that you believe best demonstrates a speciation event and make your case. Also, kindly give us your du jour definition of "speciation".

 

[Frank Robert]

The honest ones do. "Intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together".
World's foremost academic Atheist changes his mind (Antony Flew)

There were many questions about Flew towards the end of his life, and how much of those books he actually wrote.
The Case of Antony Flew

He said this with a laugh. When we began the interview, he warned me, with merry self-deprecation, that he suffers from “nominal aphasia,” or the inability to reproduce names. But he forgot more than names. He didn’t remember talking with Paul Kurtz about his introduction to “God and Philosophy” just two years ago. There were words in his book, like “abiogenesis,” that now he could not define.​

 

[Bradskii]

A summary table is inadequate to critically judge the claim that a speciation event is evidenced.

Take from the references given, the lab experiment that you believe best demonstrates a speciation event and make your case. Also, kindly give us your du jour definition of "speciation".

Standard MO I see. But what about putting forward the evidence for your claims? All you do is attempt to deny what anyone else says. It's always a negative approach you take. And Flew? Good grief, I hope nobody falls for that blatant diversion and it's treated as it should be. That is, ignored.

So you said that there was an overlap between the theological claims and science. So, yet again, where is this overlap so we can examine the scientific aspect of it?

 

[pitabread]

A summary table is inadequate to critically judge the claim that a speciation event is evidenced.

Take from the references given, the lab experiment that you believe best demonstrates a speciation event and make your case. Also, kindly give us your du jour definition of "speciation".

As a meta-analysis, I find it really strange when I see some creationists seemingly arguing against the notion of speciation.

At the same time, other groups of creationists (e.g. Young-Earth creationists) not only accept speciation, but are dependent on hyper-speciation to account for biological diversity following the Flood.

Why is there no consistency on the subject from creationists?

(Rhetorical question, that.)

 

[o_mlly]

OK, so some people told you it's true and wrote it down, so you believe it - and 'divine revelation' - was that a personal epiphany? the voice of God?

You appear to be mocking my faith. That would be just another indicator that you have no further arguments.

So, it's the 'animating principle' of the human person in a functioning body, which makes the difference between living and non-living - IOW what used to be called the 'breath of life', life force, or élan vital. The study of biology has shown that idea is, at best, metaphorical.

Citation to support your claim "biology has shown" that idea of the soul is false. (If a thing is "at best metaphorical" then it must be untrue.)

When the blood supply to the brain ceases (permanently), brain cells stop functioning due to lack of oxygen, and coherent brain function also ceases. Most of the cells in the body will continue to function for some time before they too succumb. The human body is no different from that of other mammals in that respect. The concept of a human 'soul' as an animating force is redundant. I was hoping for something more interesting.

And your point is simply that the death of the body is a process? The soul continues to animate the body but non-functioning body parts cannot respond. Death occurs when no body part can be animated. At that point, the soul vacates the body.

There's no need for a rational alternative - as above, a literal soul is as redundant as phlogiston; my question concerned the various other soul concepts, some of which are held by Christians whose specific beliefs differ from yours.

The soul has always been postulated as immaterial. Your claim that an immaterial substance is merely a redundant material substance is nonsense. All of science's attempts to disclose the supposed and imagined life force as a material substance have failed. How can a thing be called "redundant" when the referent that makes it so has never been demonstrated. Wishful thinking, I suppose.

What other Christian concepts of "soul" do you think differ from mine? Citations, of course required.

But never mind.

Another sign of an exhaustion of arguments.

 

[driewerf]

If the multiple methods all rely on sophisticated apparatuses and highly skilled technicians then the decrease in uncertainty is minimal. Have you ever heard that doing the same thing twice and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity?

You have obviously never performed an even mildly sophisticated measurement like a titration. There is a reason why spreadsheets have functions like the standard deviation.

 

[o_mlly]

Typically biologists with expertise in relevant fields will come to a consensus view. It is not necessarily fixed - as is normal in science, if new data becomes available (including new analyses of existing data), a species designation may be revised.

Please let us know when the consensus reduces from the current 26 definitions of speciation to, let's say, just a few.

Well... no. It is no different from any other observational categorization in science; at some point, the data may suggest a tentative novel category. As more data arrives and is analysed, the categorisation may be more or less well supported. The categorization may change as a consequence.

This is pretty basic stuff.

The really basic stuff to remember is that "invention" is not "discovery".

 

[o_mlly]

So the anonymous people expose themselves in the anonymous book that they wrote.

Got it.

"Meaningless posts" = "Meaningless posts" + 1

 

[Astrid]

AV has a real aversion to alcohol, and he stretches the stories to fit his myopic interpretations of scripture.

Self indulgence takes many forms, always its a
negative, sometimes disastrous.
Putting how you happen to feel ahead of all
other considerstions.
I was taught that self indulgence is the root of
all evil.

 

[Astrid]

"Meaningless posts" = "Meaningless posts" + 1

So stop it already.

ETA. The "optimistic " is coz there is
no "fat chance" icon.