Behold the Terrible Lizard!

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The $64.00 term for this, JB, is: ontological reduction.

A term that is truly an evolutionist's nightmare.

And they WILL NOT discuss it.

Can't say as I blame them either.

There's no problem with ontological reduction - and Mr. Occam recommends not multiplying entities unnecessarily - especially not introducing whole ill-defined, inexplicable, unobservable ontologies...

It's called 'parsimony'.

You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no problem with ontological reduction - and Mr. Occam recommends not multiplying entities unnecessarily - especially not introducing whole ill-defined, inexplicable, unobservable ontologies...

I did all that!?

It's called 'parsimony'.

Parsimony doesn't explain the order that these "whole ill-defined, inexplicable, unobservable ontologies" arrived on the earth:

1. Earth before Sun
2. Light before Sun
3. Plants before marine organisms
4. Fruit bearing trees before fish
5. Birds before insects
6. Plants before Sun
7. Man before rain

So whether well-defined or ill-defined, they can't be explained.

You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

We call them "miracles."

 

[MIDutch]

I did all that!? Parsimony doesn't explain the order that these "whole ill-defined, inexplicable, unobservable ontologies" arrived on the earth:

1. Earth before Sun

3. Plants before marine organisms
4. Fruit bearing trees before fish
5. Birds before insects
6. Plants before Sun
7. Man before rain

So whether well-defined or ill-defined, they can't be explained

What is unexplainable is why some people believe those things when pretty much all scientific evidence contradicts them.

We call them "miracles."

The rest of the world calls them something else.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is unexplainable is why some people believe those things when pretty much all scientific evidence contradicts them.

If I went by scientific evidence, there's a LOT of stuff I wouldn't believe: Jesus walking on water, the Resurrection, Christ's ascension, virgin birth ... and on and on and on.

And while that might get me straight A's in college, I'd flunk in the end.

MIDutch]The rest of the world calls them something else.

The rest of the world is wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

If I went by scientific evidence, there's a LOT of stuff I wouldn't believe: Jesus walking on water, the Resurrection, Christ's ascension, virgin birth ... and on and on and on.

And while that might get me straight A's in college, I'd flunk in the end.The rest of the world is wrong.

As far as am aware, there is no scientific evidence whatever related to the virgin birth, the Resurrection or any of those other miracles, neither for nor against. It seems to me that you are trying to "resurrect" 57's Dead Guy argument. And so we are back to Bible. For most Christians, the truth of the Gospels does not depend on the literary genre which they assign to Genesis.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I did all that!?

Anyone who invokes the supernatural.

Parsimony doesn't explain the order that these "whole ill-defined, inexplicable, unobservable ontologies" arrived on the earth:

1. Earth before Sun
2. Light before Sun
3. Plants before marine organisms
4. Fruit bearing trees before fish
5. Birds before insects
6. Plants before Sun
7. Man before rain

So whether well-defined or ill-defined, they can't be explained.We call them "miracles."

That's historical fiction - no further explanation necessary. The available evidence suggests a more rational order of events.

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as am aware, there is no scientific evidence whatever related to the virgin birth, the Resurrection or any of those other miracles, neither for nor against.

So they aren't scientific, are they?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's historical fiction - no further explanation necessary. The available evidence suggests a more rational order of events.

Well.

That takes care of that, doesn't it?

 

[Speedwell]

So they aren't scientific, are they?

No. They are not subject to scientific investigation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well.

That takes care of that, doesn't it?

It makes rational sense of it. No need to decide between invisible cosmic elephants on the back of invisible cosmic turtles, or cosmic serpents laying Earth-size eggs, or fantastical Genesis stories, etc., since they're all creation myths and there's a better rational natural explanation with supporting evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

It makes rational sense of it. No need to decide between invisible cosmic elephants on the back of invisible cosmic turtles, or cosmic serpents laying Earth-size eggs, or fantastical Genesis stories, etc., since they're all creation myths and there's a better rational natural explanation with supporting evidence.

You're mything the point.

 

[Shemjaza]

You know what... every single car.. has a steering wheel.. but.. are different manufacturers...

Seems like when something works well ... it gets used in many models and makes....

Just like the similarities in all of God's creation...


No proof of evolution.. just proof of a designer.

Steering wheels change as materials and designs change. If Ford develops a new way of making steering wheels they can roll it out across the whole line of cars. You don't need to redevelop each car's steering wheels independently.

An intelligent designer could do the same to life... but life only falls into branches. Techniques are developed separately and not according to function.

The American timber wolf is more genetically related to humans then it is to the Tasmanian wolf... that makes perfect sense if modern marsupials diverged after they got to Australia, but is silly if you propose an intelligent designer.

With your flawed car example you didn't respond to my example. Why do species have atavistic traits?

You could say a snake has leftover legs because God wasn't very thorough when he purged the legs... but why do birds have teeth/maw genes?

 

[AV1611VET]

You could say a snake has leftover legs because God wasn't very thorough when he purged the legs...

Lamarckism?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're mything the point.

It's the believers in myths that myth the point.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The rest of the world is wrong.

Which is of course what just about everyone believes.

 

[JacksBratt]

Steering wheels change as materials and designs change. If Ford develops a new way of making steering wheels they can roll it out across the whole line of cars. You don't need to redevelop each car's steering wheels independently.

An intelligent designer could do the same to life... but life only falls into branches. Techniques are developed separately and not according to function.

The American timber wolf is more genetically related to humans then it is to the Tasmanian wolf... that makes perfect sense if modern marsupials diverged after they got to Australia, but is silly if you propose an intelligent designer.

With your flawed car example you didn't respond to my example. Why do species have atavistic traits?

You could say a snake has leftover legs because God wasn't very thorough when he purged the legs... but why do birds have teeth/maw genes?

Its still... a steering wheel.

 

[JacksBratt]

Which is of course what just about everyone believes.

Well, do I have to say it again?

Truth.. is not a democracy..

7 billion people can believe one thing.

20 people believe the opposite... and be right..


Truth couldn't care how many people deny it...

God said that the path is narrow... Didn't need to be too wide for the minority of the masses that will take it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's the believers in myths that myth the point.

That is correct, and you're mything it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well, do I have to say it again?

Truth.. is not a democracy..

7 billion people can believe one thing.

20 people believe the opposite... and be right..


Truth couldn't care how many people deny it...

God said that the path is narrow... Didn't need to be too wide for the minority of the masses that will take it.

Actually humans claim that's what God said, we have no evidence that God said anything of the sort.

Using your logic, since there are fewer atheists than Christians the atheists have it right and the truth is not what you want it to be.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Truth couldn't care how many people deny it...

Same can of course be said of insanity.

Being only one knowing “a truth” you can not prove in any way.

How do you discern that truth from falsehood?

And how do you figure out that the truth of other people are less than your truth ?