cavediver writes (please don't ever get trapped down there)
quote:
I'm glad because I've personally been quite impressed with Rob's attitude both here and across the board, and I think you've been giving him quite a rough time. He demonstrates a humility in his faith which is all too rare here at EvC, but i do think his humility is often misunderstood...
I think you are impressed because you are too used to dealing with the typical know-it-all creationist.
Is it humility or just a self-defense tactic? In fact, there is a logical fallacy that is named after it. But anyway, consider the following.
I want to explain the number of species carried by the ark and the repopulation of the wilderness by proposing that genetics and inheritence worked differently back then. All Noah needed was an ark, a couple of horses, a couple of dogs, a couple of ants, a couple of pigeons, a couple of earthworms, and a couple of plants. Since genetic inheritence worked differently back then, after the flood the horses gave birth to other animals like the elephants, tigers, lions, giraffe, etc. The dogs gave birth to smaller animals like the cats, rodents, racoons, etc. The ants gave birth to all the little creepy crawly stuff, including bees and spiders. The pigeons gave birth to all the other bird kinds like the eagles and the crows. The worms gave birth to things like snakes (hey, they both crawl around on their bellies) and other things that don't walk. The plants gave rise to all the plants and trees we now have.
Remember that I know very little about biology, especially genetics and inheritence. Yes, biologists have shown me how ignorant I was, but this ignorant fool was able to come up with the above explanation that the experts couldn't come up with. This just shows that WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING therefore what I stated above was entirely possible. As a matter of fact, since the flood DID happen, it must have been the case. Remember that I don't know much about biology.
Does that sound like humility to you? It's just assuming that since I know little about biology, what I do know about biology must be the limits of human knowledge in this field. It's the mindset of a teenager who thinks that his teachers don't know anything beyond what he knows.
quote:
Just a quick comment on Rob's conversation with Sylvain Porier...
I really doubt that what Rob told us about the conversation was entirely accurate. We all have the tendency to bend our stories just a tiny bit to make it sound in our favor or to make the listeners more sympathetic to our cause.
quote:
to deny a miracle based upon physical laws is just silly... Trying to refute miracles based upon science is a rather futile exercise, and any scientist whether theist/agnostic/atheist should have the sense to realise this.
That's just it, cavediver. It's silly enough that I doubt anyone would put his reputation on the line to make such an argument. I suspect very much that Rob agreed at the beginning of that conversation that the premise had to be that Jesus didn't violate any law or theorem of science. Why else would an academic try to disprove a miracle with science?
I've seen scientists say stupid things, but not this stupid.
Edited by rgb, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2