Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 70 (403373)
06-02-2007 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by mpb1
06-01-2007 9:01 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
Creationists have been screaming about the lack of transitional fossils for years and years and years...
Yes. They're wrong.
Don't you think evolutionists with solid 'missing links' would have been parading them around for all the world to see?
Yes. We do. Only of course we don't call them "missing links", because the ones we've found are not missing.
It defies logic not to believe that, and your links not withstanding, the evidence to support claims of transitional fossils is almost nowhere to be found online.
Not only does this "defy logic", but it's false, to boot.
The evidence is found online. We've given you some links. Did you not look at them?
Here's another: Intermediate Forms Between Classes
What the heck do you mean "your links not withstanding"? That's like saying: "The fact that 2+2=4 notwithstanding, 2+2=5."
Can you find me one single website which sets out the evidence for evolution and doesn't refer to intermediate forms?
Here's another question for you. All the lists we've given you were compiled by evolutionists, weren't they? If lists of intermediate forms would support creationism, why is there no list compiled by creationists? It is they who are frightened and embarrassed by the abundance of evidence.
You are spouting company policy because you want Darwinian evolution to be true. I think you care as much about the facts as YECs.
No. I am saying that there are intermediate forms because there are intermediate forms. I've done the research. They exist.
Please do not tell me silly fairy-stories about what I think and why I think it: it's not just offensive, it's also pointless, since this is a subject on which you have no earthly chance of deceiving me.
Fifty evolutionary anthropologists like Dr. Schwartz could tell you 'missing links' don't exist, or barely exist if at all, and you wouldn't buy it.
Well no, of course not. If fifty anthropologists told me I had a pair of silver wings, I wouldn't buy that either.
But in fact, Schwartz does not tell me that intermediate forms don't exist, and there are not fifty of him.
But fifty of them won't stand up and admit the truth ...
Because what you choose to call "admitting the truth" would actually be telling a ridiculous lie.
So evolutionists must continue holding the line, no matter what the evidence says.
So to prop up your fantasies about intermediate forms, you have to fantasise that scientists are lying to you.
Apparently when the National Academy of Sciences tells you that "So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species" they're lying.
All of them?
Didn't anyone resign from the NAS over that statement? No?
What else are scientists lying about? Is the atomic theory just a big hoax?
How 'bout some more honest evolutionists?
The way to tell whether someone is honest, or accurate, is not to see whether he agrees with your preconceptions, but whether he's supported by the evidence. If you are, in fact, wrong, as you were with your "two dozen" claim, then it would be dishonest for any competent scientist to agree with you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 9:01 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 47 of 70 (403388)
06-02-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mpb1
06-02-2007 2:41 AM


Purely naturalistic evolution MUST preclude the existence of a soul,
Purely naturalistic evolution doesn't preclude the existence of a soul any more than the game of baseball precludes the existence of a soul.
Science only studies and concerns itself with things that can be observed. A soul cannot be observed. The conclusion that follows from these two facts is not that science must believe that the soul does not exist. The conclusion that follows is that science takes no position on whether a soul exists.
I ask you to look at the rules of major league baseball. Can you see any where in those rules where it talks about a soul? No? I didn't think so. Therefore, baseball does not believe in a soul.
Does that sound ridiculous? Yes. That is exactly the structure of your argument intended to show that "purely naturalistic evolution precludes the existence of a soul."
For the quoted statement to be true, there must be some part of evolution that makes the positive claim that certain evidence that we have demonstrates that the existence of the soul is impossible. There must be a claim of evidence ruling out the possibility of a soul. The mere fact that science does not study the soul is a far cry from the idea that science says it doesn't exist.
What you are doing is creating your own version of what you think someone who believes in naturalistic evolution must believe, based on your own biases. If you truly want to create a chart that accurately reflects what the various camps claim, you pretty much have to listen to what they actually say, and not foist your own interpretations on them

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 2:41 AM mpb1 has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 48 of 70 (403392)
06-02-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mpb1
06-02-2007 2:41 AM


mpb1 writes:
I freely admit that the first three views are based at least partially in faith. (I personally happen to believe there is also an element of faith to a belief in naturalistic evolution, but that's beside the point.)
Purely naturalistic evolution MUST preclude the existence of a soul, if you define 'soul' in the biblical sense ” the way most people in America, at least, would define soul (having to do with an ability to commune with God, and innate immortality [or conditional immortality, depending on one's religious view]).
So in the generally accepted sense of the word, naturalistic evolution does not allow for the existence of a soul. Naturalistic evolution restricts humanity to bone, tissue, and chemical processes. It says man is formed apart from any supernatural activity, and there is absolutely no other explanation for the existence of a human soul.
So in the purest sense of the definition, I believe it is fair to say that for naturalistic evolutionists, humans do not have a soul, unless you want to define soul as a 'sense of self,' rather than something equal or akin to a supernaturally endowed, immortal, ethereal spirit.
So perhaps a naturalistic evolutionist who believes in a soul is 1-10% theistic (or perhaps 'magistic' 'cause biblical souls are not scientifically provable or measurable.
If 100% pure naturalistic evolution is TRUE, humans do NOT have souls, in the generally accepted definition of the word.
I've looked a bit more closely at your chart, and actually it's missing a column for pure science, and what you're describing are different religious/philosophical beliefs, in a sense. I'd suggest that you add a fifth column for what I called above "scientific naturalism" which is also more commonly known as "methodological naturalism", and that would be the best title for the column (or "methodological naturalistic evolution", in keeping with the way you're titling things). Then, in order to solve the "soul" problem, your existing naturalistic evolution column could be titled "philosophical (or ontological) naturalistic evolution" or better and probably more common "metaphysical naturalistic evolution". Metaphysical naturalism involves the belief that there's nothing supernatural, no souls , gods etc.
Methodological naturalism is the basis of modern science and involves no beliefs about the supernatural or whether or not there are Gods or we have souls, and it is practised by theists, agnostics and atheists alike.
Other people have pointed out faults elsewhere in your chart, like the old creationist chestnut about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. This is not a scientific objection to evolutionary theory or abiogenesis hypotheses/theories, and seems to be based on the blind faith that the earth is a closed or isolated system, which it isn't.
But a point I would make is that as your chart seems to be dealing mainly with faith about origins of life, then it's very incomplete. Remember that most of the people you share the world with are not Christian or Jewish, and you should perhaps include columns devoted to the many other origins beliefs in the world, those with their roots in other religions than your own.
I know you're from an area where many people are indoctrinated in their childhoods with a literal belief in ancient Jewish mythology, but there are many other creation mythologies that you could include in the interests of some cultural objectivity, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 2:41 AM mpb1 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 70 (403393)
06-02-2007 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mpb1
06-02-2007 2:41 AM


still on soul
Purely naturalistic evolution MUST preclude the existence of a soul, if you define 'soul' in the biblical sense ” the way most people in America, at least, would define soul (having to do with an ability to commune with God, and innate immortality [or conditional immortality, depending on one's religious view]).
Why.
It does not preclude God or Gods, Angels or Pink Unicorns. All a Naturalistic Approach to Evolution does is say that those things cannot be tested for and so if they exist, they are not Natural.
Stop for a second and think about the implications of what you are saying.
None of the position postulate a soul that can be examined scientifically. Not one of them.
How is Naturalistic Evolution any different?
How does a YEC trot out a soul for scientific examination?
How does a OEC trot out a soul for scientific examination?
How does a TE trot out a soul for scientific examination?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 2:41 AM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 70 (403396)
06-02-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mpb1
06-01-2007 9:01 PM


"For All The World To See"?
Don't you think evolutionists with solid 'missing links' would have been parading them around for all the world to see?
We will continue to do so unless actively prevented.
"The world's most important collection of human fossils may soon be hidden from public view - if religious leaders get their way.
In a move that has stunned scientists, senior clergy have demanded that the bones and skulls currently exhibited in Nairobi's National Museum of Kenya be removed from display to prevent young Africans from being corrupted.
'It's creating a big weapon against Christians that's killing our faith,' said Bishop Boniface Adoyo, who is leading the hide-the-bones campaign. 'When children go to museums they'll start believing we evolved from these apes.'
Not surprisingly, the bishop's remarks have infuriated scientists who consider the museum's collection to be unrivalled anywhere else in the world. Its fossils include those of the 4 million-year-old apeman, Australopithecus anamensis, the 1.5 million-year-old remains of the Nariokotome boy, the most complete skeleton of an ancient human ever found, and a series of other bones that highlight crucial phases of our evolutionary past.
" --- The Observer, September 2006.
BY contrast, here's a little evolutionist parade:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 9:01 PM mpb1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ok boy, posted 07-26-2007 11:13 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6139 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 51 of 70 (403402)
06-02-2007 12:59 PM


Issues...
Doddy,
About theistic evolution, it's really just a carbon copy of naturalistic evolution, with God added somewhere (anywhere) in the equation. So it's really just NE + faith. I figured it made little sense to complicate it beyond that.
Most TE's I know, agree with whatever science says. When they allegorize Genesis, they are free to believe just about anything science tells them. (I'm personally stuck between TE and OEC, even though I can't help having personal disdain for the TE view.) Maybe in the TE 'problem' column, I should add the (revised) info from the NE 'problem' column or refer to it.
About ID, if I could fit it, I'd add it. But since most IDs are either YECs, OECs, or TEs (and since it can't really fit in a printable version of the chart), I thought I'd just incorporate it where I could. It seems to me that the 'ID Movement' has been reduced down to the argument over Irreducible Complexity anyway. Besides that, it's basically OEC or TE.
About thermodynamics/entropy and biogenesis, I'm going to seriously revise or remove them.
------
About transitional forms...
Maybe this is a case of perspective... People like me with a Creationist bias want to see the cup (of transitional fossils) half empty. ...I happen to see the cup 99% empty.
People with an evolutionist perspective see the cup as full enough to support to the view.
So we argue back and forth, and get nowhere
I can't be convinced the cup isn't empty, and you can't be convinced the cup isn't full (full enough, at least).
I need to read through all the transitional fossil links that have been posted throughout this thread, and try to wrap my head around whatever's there...
I like to get down to the bottom line consensus of what reality IS as fast as possible... So I'll probably end up e-mailing or calling some university biologists, paleontologists, and whoever else I can find to give me some quick answers on what the 'consensus number' is on how many proven transitional fossils have been found ” as compared to how many SHOULD have been found by now (out of 200 million), if gradual evolution were true.
If there's any consensus on that, I think it would be a good starting point. I'd probably ask questions like this...
Q. Mr. Biologist / Paleontologist, do you have a good working knowledge of transitional fossils? (if yes, proceed)
Q. Is it correct that there are approx. 200 million fossils classified into 250,000 species? (assuming the answer is yes or thereabouts, proceed)
Q. Of that number, are you aware of approx. how many of those fossils have been proven to be transitional forms ” showing an evolutionary state between one clear species and another?
Q. If that number is X and X is Y% of 200 million (let's assume it's under 1%, for now at least), Mr. Biologist / Paleontologist, do you consider that a large enough percentage to give credence to GRADUAL EVOLUTION, or would you say the fossil record honestly seems more like what Dr. Jeff Schwartz has described; that is, showing the SUDDEN APPEARANCE of most species, rather than gradually-evolving species, with long transitional phases (IF you believe that is an accurate assessment of his view [see The Thinkers: Pitt anthropologist thinks Darwin's theory needs to evolve on some points or contact him directly Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh ]).
(If the biologist/paleontologist used the argument about the rarity of fossilization occurring, blah, blah, blah... then the discussion would probably end. If not, I would proceed.)
Q. If the entire theory of evolution were dependent solely on the transitional fossil record, do you believe it would be PROVABLE?
Q. Still hypothetically asking 'if the entire theory of evolution were dependent solely on the transitional fossil record' and it could NOT be CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN by that alone (apart from DNA research), would you consider that the sudden appearance of nearly ALL species in the fossil record could EVEN REMOTELY be interpreted as evidence for some version of supernatural Creation?
Q. Why (or Why not)?
After getting a consensus of honest answers to these questions, I'd feel I could come to some sort of conclusion, as to whether or not there are legitimate grounds to question the provability of evolution ” from the fossil record alone ” and whether or not there is any legitimacy to the notion of instant creation as a possible explanation for the sudden appearance of most species in the fossil record.
------
About the NE soul issue, I'll probably have to revise the soul statement to something that basically says the equivalent of "no soul, by default, or by definition," since NE does not scientifically speak to the issue of a soul. However, I believe the distinction should be pointed out ” as the materialist view does not 'allow' for an immaterial soul, that would somehow magically appear in a human of purely 'naturalistic' origin. (You can't have your cake and eat it too
------
bluegenes,
About other views, I'd have to let someone else cover those. I created this chart to speak to those who are either Christians or are considering Christianity. It's built on a Christian framework, as the science of each view is compared to Scripture.
------
Thanks again for all the feedback. I appreciate everyone's help in revising this chart. I may argue, but if I'm shown to be incorrect, I'll change my conclusions ” perhaps not without a fight, but a good argument should be able to win a fight, and then you know you've got something
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 06-02-2007 1:56 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 2:41 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 54 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 3:09 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 58 by Doddy, posted 06-02-2007 7:38 PM mpb1 has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 52 of 70 (403408)
06-02-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mpb1
06-02-2007 12:59 PM


Species Transitions
Q. Of that number, are you aware of approx. how many of those fossils have been proven to be transitional forms ” showing an evolutionary state between one clear species and another?
This question is very flawed. Today there are separate species (populations which do not share a gene pool) which we can NOT tell apart by looking at them with all their organs and fleshy parts there. It has taken either detailed field studies or genetics to determine that they are separate species.
There is very, very little chance of species that have just undergone speciation to be recognizable from fossils alone.
A "transitional" between species is something that one could argue can't really be defined. Since lions and tigers can still (after a small number of millions of years of separation) interbreed (and apparently produce fertile offspring sometimes) are they "transitionals" between something and something else?
Speciation is going on now and has been observed. But it is indeed fairly subtle and is very, very unlikely to show a record in fossils.
Historically the argument over transitionals has been well above the species level. So your question is rather odd.
Even YEC creationists agree that speciation happens and many think it happens at an extraordinarily fast rate. The transitionals aregued about are between things like land animals and whales, fish and amphibians, reptiles and mammals, other primates and humans etc. None of these transitions are anywhere near the species level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 12:59 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 70 (403413)
06-02-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mpb1
06-02-2007 12:59 PM


A Nearly Empty Cup
Maybe this is a case of perspective... People like me with a Creationist bias want to see the cup (of transitional fossils) half empty. ...I happen to see the cup 99% empty.
People with an evolutionist perspective see the cup as full enough to support to the view.
So we argue back and forth, and get nowhere
I can't be convinced the cup isn't empty, and you can't be convinced the cup isn't full (full enough, at least).
* Estimates of the number of living species: "Estimates for the total number of species on the planet range from three million to 100 million, though most generally accepted estimates are between five and 20 million." *
Let's be conservative, and say three million.
* Estimates for proportion of species which are extinct: "Paleontologists estimate that as many as 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct (Raup, D. M. 1991. Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?)" *
Let's be conservative, and say 90%. That would be equivalent to complete turnover (of species, remember) every 350,000,000 years*. If you can show me a species that's remained stable for that long, I will eat my hat. I therefore maintain that this is quite as conservative as I need to be, and more so.
I believe you about the 250,000 species in the fossil record. Then putting this together with the most conservative figures I can, the cup should be 99.17% empty.
I happen to see the cup 99% empty.
Lucky guess?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 12:59 PM mpb1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by petrophysics1, posted 06-06-2007 5:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 54 of 70 (403417)
06-02-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mpb1
06-02-2007 12:59 PM


Transitional Fossils/percentages
mpb1 writes:
Q. If that number is X and X is Y% of 200 million (let's assume it's under 1%, for now at least), Mr. Biologist / Paleontologist, do you consider that a large enough percentage to give credence to GRADUAL EVOLUTION
Here's an attempt to help you understand the fossil record, if you really want to (although I suspect that, like most creationists, it's possible that you don't!) Let's say were're looking for something that gives a clear indication of our own ancestral line at the time they were moving from being fish to amphibians. An obvious thing that might show in the fossil record would be limbs that were halfway between being fins and legs, something that would have to have happened. As you probably know, a number of creatures with this characteristic have been found, including some samples last year of a creature that had rudimentary wrists.
Now what I want to talk about is your 1%. Fish species at that time were not rushing around saying to each other "hey, let's move onto land". For this one line that did make the transition, there would've been thousands or tens of thousands of species that remained fish and are the ancestors of modern fish. So, what this means is that you would be liable to find only one such obvious example of a clear transitional for thousands or tens of thousands of fish fossils from that epoch. Certainly, one percent of fossils being obvious transitionals of that kind would astonish paleontologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 12:59 PM mpb1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 6:21 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 70 (403434)
06-02-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by mpb1
06-02-2007 2:41 AM


Souls
Purely naturalistic evolution MUST preclude the existence of a soul, if you define 'soul' in the biblical sense.
The Bible doesn't define soul. A lot of what people think about the soul is a result of the attempt to install Greek philosophy as an intellectual underpinning for Christianity. For example, the word "immaterial" just doesn't occur in the Bible.
The way most people in America, at least, would define soul (having to do with an ability to commune with God, and innate immortality [or conditional immortality, depending on one's religious view]).
I don't see how that would conflict with NE ... more later.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 2:41 AM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 70 (403436)
06-02-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by bluegenes
06-02-2007 3:09 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils/percentages
I think your point could have been made more simply. If we're talking about the relative abundance of intermediate forms between whole vertebrate classes, then there aren't going to be that many, 'cos there are only five vertebrate classes (Or seven, depending on who you ask). So there are only going to be four transitions: fish-amphibian; amphibian-reptile; reptile-mammal; reptile-bird. Of course, they're going to branch a bit on the way.
Given that, we do have intermediate forms from all four series.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 3:09 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 7:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 57 of 70 (403439)
06-02-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2007 6:21 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils/percentages
Dr Adequate writes:
I think your point could have been made more simply. If we're talking about the relative abundance of intermediate forms between whole vertebrate classes, then there aren't going to be that many, 'cos there are only five vertebrate classes
It certainly could've been made more simply, and more correctly. When I looked into this about a year ago, I was actually surprised that there was so much between whole classes. The chances of finding even one sample of that single species of reptile that was on its way to being a mammal seemed to be slim, but there's quite a lot, if I remember rightly.
Of course, I may not have been allowing for the fact that predictions of evolutionary theory combined with good geological dating means that fossil hunters may be getting very good at figuring out what are likely places to look for such things.
I think that was the case with Tiktaalik, the fish with the wrists I mentioned above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 6:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 58 of 70 (403442)
06-02-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mpb1
06-02-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Issues...
mpb1 writes:
Most TE's I know, agree with whatever science says
Ok, but then I think you should add in a 'Scientific Problems' heading, but then say 'See problems with Naturalistic Evolution'.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 12:59 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 8:32 PM Doddy has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6139 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 59 of 70 (403450)
06-02-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Doddy
06-02-2007 7:38 PM


Re: Issues...
Doddy, you're right, I will.
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Doddy, posted 06-02-2007 7:38 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 10:56 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 70 (403456)
06-02-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mpb1
06-02-2007 8:32 PM


TE v. NC
Let's be precise about this.
It is in principle possible for something to be an objection to NE but not TE.
For example, suppose the stuff about the second law of thermodynamics had been true. Then that would be a powerful argument against NE --- but not against TE, 'cos an omnipotent God could do what he liked.
NB: I have to pick an example which is false, 'cos I can't think of one that's true. But it is clear in principle that there could be a difference between TE and NE scenarios.
---
By the way, I'd like to thank mpb1 for starting this thread, it's turned out very interesting.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 8:32 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024