Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[cur_deus_homo]

God: "Tell them, 'I AM sent me'."

Jesus: "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Bill Clinton: "It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' 'is'."

 

[cur_deus_homo]

aharvey: "And although you gave a seemingly more specific prediction about what the initial product was, since we’ll never know what a biblical kind is..."

Are you going to make poor Nineveh recapitulate centuries of debate about Platonic Forms versus Aristotelian Forms?

I really wish Christians would realize just how embedded their traditional theology is in the concepts of Greek philosophy. If Darwin has provided any liberation to the Christian worldview, the usurpation of "Forms" or "Kinds" by evolutionary theory would be such a liberation.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

Disagreed and corrected are not the same thing. I missed where you told me where God got the matter, or where you told me what non-flukey thing He did to create life. Isn’t that what you want me to explain? And although you gave a seemingly more specific prediction about what the initial product was, since we’ll never know what a biblical kind is, you’ll never be able to specify what that initial product was!

I'm sorry you missed where I said created twice. Is this going to be another non topic we need to beat to death?

What does that mean, exactly? Created it from what? Isn’t that what you’re asking me?

The Word brought forth into existance what wasn't there before.

Why don’t you just say “absolutely none whatsoever�? If you disagree with this, then please show me that evidence.

I see the design of the cell as evidence. I see the failure of non living matter producing life even with the "intelligently designed" lab environments as an evidence. There are many reasons that lead me to believe as I do, as I am sure there are for you.

I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say something flukey happened in the environment to allow abiogenesis. It’s more accurate to say that conditions favorable to abiogenesis are pretty darn rare.

Yeah, I'd say rare indeed. To the point of not being discovered yet.

How do you define “functioning environment�? What do you mean by a functioning, lifeless environment?

The earth itself was "built" to sustain life.

Extremely incompatible.

As in: there are many environments that nothing lives at all?

Your point being…?

The "natural way" seems to be indicating an environment that can not sustain all the amino acids while it's forming them.

Well, think about it. There are lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of fossils that belong to organisms that look very different to nothing like anything that is alive today, from which I conclude that today’s living organisms do not completely cover the diversity of life in earlier times. Is that unreasonable?

Not at all. However there are also examples of things in the record that have little change at all. The way you read the record is as a "family" tree. The way I see the record is extinction of certain life forms.

and I believe I even commented that I suspected that this idea isn’t fully appreciated in the larger biological community.

Which is wonderful, because I wasn't asking the "larger biological community" what it thinks.

So why would you even expect me to have evidence? At least I can present a logical, coherent case.

I should have said ... "what has lead you to this belief", I forgot you break out in hives when I say "evidence". Mea culpa.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

God: "Tell them, 'I AM sent me'."

Jesus: "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Bill Clinton: "It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' 'is'."

Why not put this over in the thread it belongs in?

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Why not put this over in the thread it belongs in?

When the context and circumstance calls for it on the other thread, I will try to remember to insert it there. But before I can do that, we must work together to drive the discussion of that thread to such a circumstance. Have you responded to my last post there yet?

 

[Nineveh]

cdh,
Yes, I did. Would you like to answer the questions on the table in this thread? Perhaps a little less essoterically as to be part of the ongoing discussion?

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

The Word brought forth into existance what wasn't there before.

I see. When you believe in a woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis, you don't need to think about your questions as deeply as when you don't believe in a woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis!

Originally posted by Nineveh

I see the design of the cell as evidence. I see the failure of non living matter producing life even with the "intelligently designed" lab environments as an evidence. There are many reasons that lead me to believe as I do, as I am sure there are for you.

How is this evidence for "how God created life out of the matter He had brought into existence"? That was the question I asked, but almost certainly not what you're referring to here. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Yeah, I'd say rare indeed. To the point of not being discovered yet.

Agreed. And hardly surprising.

Originally posted by Nineveh

As in: there are many environments that nothing lives at all?

Over the history of the earth, that's a fair statement.

Originally posted by Nineveh

The "natural way" seems to be indicating an environment that can not sustain all the amino acids while it's forming them.

Where are you getting this stuff? And in any case, what makes you think that the earliest "life" forms needed all the amino acids that modern life forms need?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Not at all. However there are also examples of things in the record that have little change at all. The way you read the record is as a "family" tree. The way I see the record is extinction of certain life forms.

Irrelevant. You were asking me for the basis of my view that earliest life forms were likely to be verrry different from anything we see today.

Although someday I might ask you why the chronology of the fossil record fits so well with the phylogenetic classification of life, and so poorly with every other non-evolutionary interpretation (e.g., ecological, behavioral, etc.).

Originally posted by Nineveh

I should have said ... "what has lead you to this belief", I forgot you break out in hives when I say "evidence". Mea culpa.

Nope, I live for evidence (and logical thinking). I break out in hives when you confound evidence with proof. I see you still need to work on this.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I understand how you feel, but that doesn't answer the question I asked:

"Are you implying being exclusive makes one wrong on the face of a matter?"

In the case of ICR, it has started out wrong, and will tend to stay that way until they open up to all scientific ideas.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

I see. When you believe in a woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis, you don't need to think about your questions as deeply as when you don't believe in a woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis!

And which part of "something happened then something happened" should I trade for my view God is powerful enough to "invent" matter?

How is this evidence for "how God created life out of the matter He had brought into existence"? That was the question I asked, but almost certainly not what you're referring to here. You really can't help yourself, can you?

And we have already decided science can't make nature do it either, but it's a good thing to pursue the quest to find out how. I still believe that's what science is supposed to be for, figuring out how, when, where, what, who...

Agreed. And hardly surprising.

I hope those who spend their lives in the field are more optimistic about it than you seem to be...

Over the history of the earth, that's a fair statement.

I don't know of any environments on earth where nothing can live. For my edification, please give examples?

Where are you getting this stuff?

Well, a few years ago scientists tried to get two left handed amino acids to stick together. They finally did it, but the environment was -300 degrees-ish. As john pointed out, a few amino acids were found in a clay experiment. Still more recently in Germany another experiment was conducted that produced another 2 or 3. They didn't tell of the environment though.

And in any case, what makes you think that the earliest "life" forms needed all the amino acids that modern life forms need?

I didn't say they did. My concern is the differeing environments it takes to get just a few and then get them arranged in the right order.

But since this is up your educational alley, do you have a guestimate on how many amino acids it would take to make the first "ancestor"?

Although someday I might ask you why the chronology of the fossil record fits so well with the phylogenetic classification of life, and so poorly with every other non-evolutionary interpretation (e.g., ecological, behavioral, etc.).

Cool

Nope, I live for evidence (and logical thinking). I break out in hives when you confound evidence with proof. I see you still need to work on this.

Physical evidence is hard to beat, you must admit.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

And which part of "something happened then something happened" should I trade for my view God is powerful enough to "invent" matter?

You don’t need to trade anything, for two reasons. First, as I’ve repeatedly emphasized, I don’t have strong opinions about the origin of the universe, matter, life, so I’m not out to convince you of anything. Second, you seem to think that your position is fundamentally different from, and superior to, what I’ve presented, when in fact they’re not really that different. A) I don’t exclude a supernatural being from being that “something,�so I'm not saying you're wrong about that, and B) for all practical purposes, how different are “something happened, we don’t know how� and “God made something happen, and we’ll never be able to know how�?

Originally posted by Nineveh

And we have already decided science can't make nature do it

Who is “we� that decided science can’t make nature do it? All I said was that I don't know how it happened. You're not extrapolating that to represent the viewpoint of the scientific community, are you?

Originally posted by Nineveh

either,

Ah, so you are quietly admitting that creationist science has come up with nothing at all about how God did this.

Originally posted by Nineveh

but it's a good thing to pursue the quest to find out how. I still believe that's what science is supposed to be for, figuring out how, when, where, what, who...

That’s what science does. You’ve got a bit of a problem here. You don’t seem to like the answers that real science is providing (or else you're annoyed that they're not spending more time and energy studying the really distant questions), but your creationist scientists can’t seem to do anything besides snipe about real scientists.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I hope those who spend their lives in the field are more optimistic about it than you seem to be...

No pessimism here. Just because something is rare doesn’t mean it’s undiscoverable; just because a problem is difficult doesn’t mean it’s unsolvable. I actually enjoy studying rare organisms and rare phenomena, and tackling difficult problems; I don’t mind not having the answers to everything, in fact, I enjoy a bit of uncertainty, I think.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I don't know of any environments on earth where nothing can live.

So a nasty, extreme environment that can be tolerated by only a single species of microbe is part of what you refer to here: “God created a perfect environment then placed living things into it�?

Originally posted by Nineveh

For my edification, please give examples?

Pretty much anywhere on Earth, 4BYA. Or are you assuming that the Earth today contains all the types of environments it ever has had?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Well, a few years ago scientists tried to get two left handed amino acids to stick together. They finally did it, but the environment was -300 degrees-ish. As john pointed out, a few amino acids were found in a clay experiment. Still more recently in Germany another experiment was conducted that produced another 2 or 3. They didn't tell of the environment though.

You’re sure drawing some grand conclusions from some skimpy data! If the German experiment didn’t report their environmental conditions, how do you know they’re different from earlier experiments? And just because two different researchers use different protocols to achieve a particular result doesn’t mean they each found the only way to do it for their particular amino acid. And furthermore, getting two amino acids to stick together (the first experiment) sounds like a rather different objective than forming amino acids (the second and third experiments). Why are you comparing them?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I didn't say they did. My concern is the differeing environments it takes to get just a few and then get them arranged in the right order.

See previous comment.

Originally posted by Nineveh

But since this is up your educational alley, do you have a guestimate on how many amino acids it would take to make the first "ancestor"?

It ain’t up my educational alley (see my earlier disclaimers; I'm not a big fan of pieces-of-animal biology, and I've spent precious little time studying theories of abiogenesis, given that they have so little to do with evolutionary theory).

Originally posted by Nineveh

Physical evidence is hard to beat, you must admit.

Well, there’s always flat-out denial. I haven’t seen how even compelling physical evidence can overcome that. E.g., when you say there’s no evidence for the dino-to-bird transition, specifically excluding things like all the unusual features birds and dinosaurs share, and the transitional specimens that run the gamut from typical dinosaurs with simple protofeathers, typical dinosaurs with typical feathers, peculiar dinosaurs with typical feathers, dinosaur-like birds with typical feathers, near-typical birds with reptilian jaws. Oh, and the fossil dinosaur nest complete with eggs and parent sitting on the nest in the classic bird-incubating-egg position (I assume this has been published by now; I saw it at the AMNH years ago fresh from Mongolia).

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

You don’t need to trade anything, for two reasons. First, as I’ve repeatedly emphasized, I don’t have strong opinions about the origin of the universe, matter, life, so I’m not out to convince you of anything.

"I see. When you believe in a woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis, you don't need to think about your questions as deeply as when you don't believe in a woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis!"

Then perhaps you should practice what you preach? Either do offer something better, or stick to expounding upon your beliefs.

Second, you seem to think that your position is fundamentally different from, and superior to, what I’ve presented, when in fact they’re not really that different.

Well, that's what I've been trying to discern. So far it seems it's nature vs ID. From that point I am quite sure you and I hold the same view of our respective beliefs as to the difference between and superiority of.

A) I don’t exclude a supernatural being from being that “something,�

I specifically asked what you meant by "flukey". You indicated it was environment (nature). At any point you want to clarify, please by all means do. It is your beliefs I was asking about.

so I'm not saying you're wrong about that, and B) for all practical purposes, how different are “something happened, we don’t know how� and “God made something happen, and we’ll never be able to know how�?

I guess that difference between our beliefs will be seen if and when you let me know when, where or how ID is brough into your beliefs.

But as of now, yes, I see a difference between "flukey" situations and Wisdom in design.

Who is “we� that decided science can’t make nature do it?

"We" as in the scientists who are dedicating their lives to a biogenesis.

All I said was that I don't know how it happened. You're not extrapolating that to represent the viewpoint of the scientific community, are you?

I can only read the outcomes of their lab work, I can't dictate what they conclude. You seem in good company where "not knowing how" is concerned.

That’s what science does. You’ve got a bit of a problem here. You don’t seem to like the answers that real science is providing

I have little if any problem with the actual findings of science.

I actually enjoy studying rare organisms and rare phenomena, and tackling difficult problems; I don’t mind not having the answers to everything, in fact, I enjoy a bit of uncertainty, I think.

I see most of humanity usually has a hunger for knowledge and the drive of curiosity That's what makes the world go-round. I wonder after this convo, if you will be inclined to check out more in the a biogenesis front?

So a nasty, extreme environment that can be tolerated by only a single species of microbe is part of what you refer to here: “God created a perfect environment then placed living things into it�?

No, what I said was "I don't know of any environments on earth where nothing can live." We weren't talking about now?

Pretty much anywhere on Earth, 4BYA. Or are you assuming that the Earth today contains all the types of environments it ever has had?

What leads you to your belief?

No, I belive the environment was perfect for life before the flood, since then some environments became more hostile than others. (Some are still becoming more hostile)

If the German experiment didn’t report their environmental conditions, how do you know they’re different from earlier experiments?

They found different amino acids.

And just because two different researchers use different protocols to achieve a particular result doesn’t mean they each found the only way to do it for their particular amino acid.

I didn't claim such a thing.

And furthermore, getting two amino acids to stick together (the first experiment) sounds like a rather different objective than forming amino acids

After we get amino acids, they then need to "stick together" in a way conducive to life. So not the same thing, but part of the same answer being sought.

(the second and third experiments). Why are you comparing them?

You asked where I was getting my info. Those are the results of the work being done in the field as I am aware of them. I try to keep an eye out for new developments.

It ain’t up my educational alley (see my earlier disclaimers; I'm not a big fan of pieces-of-animal biology, and I've spent precious little time studying theories of abiogenesis, given that they have so little to do with evolutionary theory).

The question was about how many amino acids are needed in an "ancestor". I thought you might have a guess at it.

Well, there’s always flat-out denial. I haven’t seen how even compelling physical evidence can overcome that. E.g., when you say there’s no evidence for the dino-to-bird transition, specifically excluding things like all the unusual features birds and dinosaurs share, and the transitional specimens that run the gamut from typical dinosaurs with simple protofeathers, typical dinosaurs with typical feathers, peculiar dinosaurs with typical feathers, dinosaur-like birds with typical feathers, near-typical birds with reptilian jaws. Oh, and the fossil dinosaur nest complete with eggs and parent sitting on the nest in the classic bird-incubating-egg position (I assume this has been published by now; I saw it at the AMNH years ago fresh from Mongolia).

In the end, we still have dinos and birds.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I specifically asked what you meant by "flukey". You indicated it was environment (nature). At any point you want to clarify, please by all means do. It is your beliefs I was asking about.

See, that’s why I was worried that you were going to abuse the term nature. How can you possibly link the fact that environmental conditions favorable to abiogenesis are rare (“flukey�) to the denial of the supernatural?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I guess that difference between our beliefs will be seen if and when you let me know when, where or how ID is brough into your beliefs.

But as of now, yes, I see a difference between "flukey" situations and Wisdom in design.

Well, duh! Too bad that’s not what I asked. Now how about articulating the differences, for all practical purposes, between “something happened, we don’t know how� and “God made something happen, and we’ll never be able to know how�?

Originally posted by Nineveh

"We" as in the scientists who are dedicating their lives to a biogenesis.

Okay, so where do you get your information that “the scientists who are dedicating their lives to a biogenesis� have “decided science can’t make nature do it�?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I have little if any problem with the actual findings of science.

Oh, that's too easy!

Originally posted by Nineveh

I see most of humanity usually has a hunger for knowledge and the drive of curiosity That's what makes the world go-round. I wonder after this convo, if you will be inclined to check out more in the a biogenesis front?

Honestly, probably not. There are an incredible number of interesting things out there to explore. I don’t need to research the virtually unresearchable to satisfy my curiosity.

Originally posted by Nineveh

No, what I said was "I don't know of any environments on earth where nothing can live." We weren't talking about now?

Earlier in this subthread you made the statement “God created a perfect environment then placed living things into it.� If the shift in ideas between these two statements confuses you, why did you make the shift?

Originally posted by Nineveh

What leads you to your belief?

To which “belief� do you refer? The notion that the Earth is old, or the notion that the Earth’s environments have changed over time?

Originally posted by Nineveh

No, I belive the environment was perfect for life before the flood, since then some environments became more hostile than others. (Some are still becoming more hostile)

This seems a rather simplistic statement. Did all life before the flood have the exact same environmental requirements? If not, then different environments had to have been hostile to some forms of life. Or do you simply mean that each environment was perfect for the forms of life that God created for that environment?

Originally posted by Nineveh

They found different amino acids.

That’s not what I meant, and I think you know it. If the German experiment didn’t report their environmental conditions, how do you know their environmental conditions were different from earlier experiments?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I didn't claim such a thing.

Well your argument doesn’t make any sense unless this is true.

Originally posted by Nineveh

After we get amino acids, they then need to "stick together" in a way conducive to life. So not the same thing, but part of the same answer being sought.

I see. Different researchers used different experimental protocols to ask different questions concerning different amino acids and they got different results. From which you conclude “Science is looking for a naturalistic answer, but so far what they are finding is specialized environments for one or two amino acids at a time. They are also finding one specialized environment too hostile for other amino acids.� Do you see that this is an unsupportable jump in logic?

Originally posted by Nineveh

You asked where I was getting my info. Those are the results of the work being done in the field as I am aware of them. I try to keep an eye out for new developments.

Yeah, I get that part! I meant you’re drawing unsubstantiated conclusions by comparing the results of experiments as if they were looking for the same thing, which they weren’t.

Originally posted by Nineveh

In the end, we still have dinos and birds.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? “Dinosaur� and “bird� are just names. Words. Just because our language doesn’t have the ability to grade between one word and the next does not demonstrate that the organisms to which we subjectively apply those words are did not do so!

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey
One implication: earliest life probably was very different from anything we've imagined. Frankly, earliest "life" may not even have qualified as "life," at least using the criteria that biologists have erected to deal with life today. Very much in the same way that the earliest "whales" share so little with modern whales that, using our modern criteria for defining whales, they would almost certainly have been classified as something else.

Then how did we(modern biologists) know to classify them as whales?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

See, that’s why I was worried that you were going to abuse the term nature. How can you possibly link the fact that environmental conditions favorable to abiogenesis are rare (“flukey�) to the denial of the supernatural?

See, that is why I purposely stopped to ask what you meant.

Well, duh! Too bad that’s not what I asked. Now how about

How about you take a valium.

articulating the differences, for all practical purposes, between “something happened, we don’t know how� and “God made something happen, and we’ll never be able to know how�?

Something is what? God is God. Something happened. God made the universe and all in it. How did He do that? Let's use science and see what we can find out.

Okay, so where do you get your information that “the scientists who are dedicating their lives to a biogenesis� have “decided science can’t make nature do it�?

I assume they can't, because if they could, it would be in the news.

Honestly, probably not. There are an incredible number of interesting things out there to explore. I don’t need to research the virtually unresearchable to satisfy my curiosity.

And some do.

Earlier in this subthread you made the statement “God created a perfect environment then placed living things into it.� If the shift in ideas between these two statements confuses you, why did you make the shift?

Me: As in: there are many environments that nothing lives at all?

You: Over the history of the earth, that's a fair statement.

Me: I don't know of any environments on earth where nothing can live.

You: So a nasty, extreme environment that can be tolerated by only a single species of microbe is part of what you refer to here: “God created a perfect environment then placed living things into it�?

Me: I don't believe one environment was around at any time to allow for only a few amino acids to form, then another environment for others, etc. God made the earth to support life, it still does, even after it was broken during the flood. The creatures we have today have adapted to their environments.

To which “belief� do you refer? The notion that the Earth is old, or the notion that the Earth’s environments have changed over time?

I asked you to please give examples of where you believe earth could not sustain life. you answered, "Pretty much anywhere on Earth, 4BYA." Then I asked why you believe that, which is where we are right now.

This seems a rather simplistic statement. Did all life before the flood have the exact same environmental requirements?

Do you mean trees and ants having the same needs to live, or do you mean trees and ants then as opposed to now?

If not, then different environments had to have been hostile to some forms of life. Or do you simply mean that each environment was perfect for the forms of life that God created for that environment?

I'll wait and answer that after I get a clear understanding of what you mean, so please include the above paragraph in your reply?

That’s not what I meant, and I think you know it. If the German experiment didn’t report their environmental conditions, how do you know their environmental conditions were different from earlier experiments?

How do you want me to answer that differently? They had a different outcome. Science is supposed to be repeatable in a lab. Hopefully soon we will learn more about their findings.

Well your argument doesn’t make any sense unless this is true.

Huh? Because they didn't find all the ways to make amino acids X, Y, and Z then I am ignorant for not understanding why I know they didn't use the same experiements that made A and B amino acids? And what does this have to do with anything anyway? You are the one who reads Nature, surely you have kept back issues? Flip through them, I'm sure you will find even more information on the topic.

I see. Different researchers used different experimental protocols to ask different questions concerning different amino acids and they got different results. From which you conclude “Science is looking for a naturalistic answer, but so far what they are finding is specialized environments for one or two amino acids at a time. They are also finding one specialized environment too hostile for other amino acids.� Do you see that this is an unsupportable jump in logic?

Not if you had read the articles. I didn't bookmark all this info, but I'm sure it's out on the net somewhere in news archives, maybe even Nature..

Yeah, I get that part! I meant you’re drawing unsubstantiated conclusions by comparing the results of experiments as if they were looking for the same thing, which they weren’t.

Ok, if they weren't trying create amino acids and get them to "link up", then what were they doing? If they aren't looking for a naturalistic explaination for the first "ancestor" what are they looking for? Or do you believe abiogenesis is really about finding out how God did things?

What in the world is that supposed to mean? “Dinosaur� and “bird� are just names. Words. Just because our language doesn’t have the ability to grade between one word and the next does not demonstrate that the organisms to which we subjectively apply those words are did not do so!

Words don't mean anything?

 

[aharvey]

Okay, I gave it the old college try re: discussing "beliefs" about ORIUML (origin of the universe, matter, and life), but there's just nothing to grab onto: logic, evidence, even robust hypotheses. :yawn: I'm glad there are folks that want to argue ad nauseum about this stuff in spite of these absences; it's just not for me, and since it has no contribution to make to the "Creationism vs. Evolution" issue, it's time for me to say sorry, but I'm just not interested in continuing a discussion above ORIUML at this time.

Dinos and birds, though; now there's an issue with evidence, logic, rational hypotheses!

A: [evidence of dino-bird connection: lots of derived features shared between dinos and birds, lots of intermediates between dinos and birds, even fossils of dinos caught in the act of behaving like birds]
N: In the end, we still have dinos and birds.
A: What in the world is that supposed to mean? “Dinosaur� and “bird� are just names. Words. Just because our language doesn’t have the ability to grade between one word and the next does not demonstrate that the organisms to which we subjectively apply those words are did not do so!

Originally posted by Nineveh

Words don't mean anything?

Do you honestly, really, truly think that I'm claiming that words have no meaning?

If not, can you give an honest summary of the point I'm actually making here?

If so,:sigh: I'll try it again.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Then how did we(modern biologists) know to classify them as whales?

Let's me make this example very clear. Take what we use today to recognize whales; take modern whales and primitive whales, show them to someone who was unaware of the timeline, and they would almost certainly classify them as something else.

Okay, so why do we classify the primitive ones as whales? Better to work backwards. More recent fossil cetaceans (say, from 5mya) are easy; even though they are different from any modern species, they still have all of the modern diagnostic features of the group. Go back further in time (say, 10mya), and you will find creatures that are less similar to modern species, but more similar to those 5mya forms. The 10mya's have many, but not all, of the modern diagnostic features.

Let's stop here for the moment. Does it make sense to you why we would classify the 5mya species as a cetacean? How about the 1Omya species?

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Something is what? God is God. Something happened. God made the universe and all in it. How did He do that? Let's use science and see what we can find out.

HMMM, seems to me that when we use science we determine that the evidence indicates the universe and the earth are billions of years old, that there was no world-wide flood 4000 years ago, that all existing life has evovled from prior living things. That is not good enough for you because it does not match your prior requirments that the results must fit with a literal Genesis.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

Okay, I gave it the old college try re: discussing "beliefs" about ORIUML (origin of the universe, matter, and life), but there's just nothing to grab onto: logic, evidence, even robust hypotheses. :yawn: I'm glad there are folks that want to argue ad nauseum about this stuff in spite of these absences; it's just not for me, and since it has no contribution to make to the "Creationism vs. Evolution" issue, it's time for me to say sorry, but I'm just not interested in continuing a discussion above ORIUML at this time.

No one is twisting your arm.

Dinos and birds, though; now there's an issue with evidence, logic, rational hypotheses!

A: [evidence of dino-bird connection: lots of derived features shared between dinos and birds, lots of intermediates between dinos and birds, even fossils of dinos caught in the act of behaving like birds]
N: In the end, we still have dinos and birds.
A: What in the world is that supposed to mean? “Dinosaur� and “bird� are just names. Words. Just because our language doesn’t have the ability to grade between one word and the next does not demonstrate that the organisms to which we subjectively apply those words are did not do so!

I'm going to side with Storrs on this one. Because things appear similar doesn't mean they are related by an ancestor.

I guess I should say:

"it's time for me to say sorry, but I'm just not interested in continuing a discussion about evo at this time."

Do you honestly, really, truly think that I'm claiming that words have no meaning?

"... just names. Words. Just because our language doesn’t have the ability to grade between one word and the next ..."

That's what it sound like you said, yes. If that's not what you meant, please explain.

If not, can you give an honest summary of the point I'm actually making here?

" “Dinosaur� and “bird� are just names. Words. Just because our language doesn’t have the ability to grade between one word and the next does not demonstrate that the organisms to which we subjectively apply those words are did not do so! "

You know? The more I read that paragraph, the less I understand what it says.

If so,:sigh: I'll try it again.

Please do.

 

[Nineveh]

Jukia,
I replied to your last reply to me, if you would kindly, pick up our discussion from there?

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Jukia,
I replied to your last reply to me, if you would kindly, pick up our discussion from there?

Nineveh: Can you give me the # of your last reply to me, its been a [bad word, bad word, another bad word, uh oh--a swear word] week. And tomorrow looks no better.

Thanks.