pajarito 0 #76 May 31, 2007 QuoteIf by quoting that piece you mean that you do not have a solution to my question, that's a fair reply. It would be more forthcoming, though, to state that you do not know if man has free will; the piece you quoted encourages you to accept that you cannot answer the question, and to learn to live with your uncertainty. No... I am certain that they both exist. I just do not fully understand how. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #77 May 31, 2007 >No... I am certain that they both exist. You have just quoted a piece that states that you cannot know that with any certainty. Perhaps in the future you might find an article that better supports your position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #78 May 31, 2007 QuoteI am omniscient. I predict pajarito will now either: A) Make authoritative but non-explanatory statements reiterating his earlier stand or B) Quietly disappear from the thread. And we have a winner! It's (A). But don't throw away your tickets yet, folk. There's still time for a daily double. Will he (B) too? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #79 May 31, 2007 QuoteSo you claim this is an antimony? To describe it: "It is unavoidable, and it is insoluble. We do not invent it, and we cannot explain it. Nor is there any way to get rid of it, save by falsifying the very facts that led us to it. What should one do, then, with an antinomy? Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it." If by quoting that piece you mean that you do not have a solution to my question, that's a fair reply. It would be more forthcoming, though, to state that you do not know if man has free will; the piece you quoted encourages you to accept that you cannot answer the question, and to learn to live with your uncertainty. Actually Bill, I disagree with you there - The article is stating that we must live with the fact that God is omnipotent and omniscient but that man also does have free will. The article is saying that we must learn to live with these 'facts' even though they do appear mutually contradictory - basically, that we must stop thinking about it and accept God's word at face value. So the way I read it the article does actually support Pajarito. It does an extremely poor job of it, but it does support him.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #80 May 31, 2007 QuoteAnd we have a winner! It's (A). But don't throw away your tickets yet, folk. There's still time for a daily double. Will he (B) too? Why are your comments directed at me personally and not at the topic of discussion. Do I upset you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #81 May 31, 2007 Quote Quote So you claim this is an antimony? To describe it: "It is unavoidable, and it is insoluble. We do not invent it, and we cannot explain it. Nor is there any way to get rid of it, save by falsifying the very facts that led us to it. What should one do, then, with an antinomy? Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it." If by quoting that piece you mean that you do not have a solution to my question, that's a fair reply. It would be more forthcoming, though, to state that you do not know if man has free will; the piece you quoted encourages you to accept that you cannot answer the question, and to learn to live with your uncertainty. Actually Bill, I disagree with you there - The article is stating that we must live with the fact that God is omnipotent and omniscient but that man also does have free will. The article is saying that we must learn to live with these 'facts' even though they do appear mutually contradictory - basically, that we must stop thinking about it and accept God's word at face value. So the way I read it the article does actually support Pajarito. It does an extremely poor job of it, but it does support him. Thank you. I know you don't agree with me on this but you saved me a post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #82 May 31, 2007 QuoteWhy are your comments directed at me personally and not at the topic of discussion. Do I upset you? Oh, I don't know. Do you think maybe because you ignore the posts with actual on-topic comments? Nah... First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #83 May 31, 2007 QuoteOh, I don't know. Do you think maybe because you ignore the posts with actual on-topic comments? Nah... I don't know what you're talking about but I am sorry you're so upset. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #84 May 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteOh, I don't know. Do you think maybe because you ignore the posts with actual on-topic comments? Nah... I don't know what you're talking about but I am sorry you're so upset. Y'know, if you really aren't going out of your way to ignore inconvenient posts then I hope you can see your way to addressing this one. All I want to know is if you still think the link you posted was good, or if you agree with me that the authors are either very stupid or unashamedly lying. Is that really too much to ask?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #85 May 31, 2007 How many animals do you think had to fit on the ark? This goes into long discussion that has already been done here (e.g. created kinds, variation, natural selection). I do not have the time to spend hours upon hours rehashing the same old stuff. Whether you agree or disagree. Been there already... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #86 May 31, 2007 QuoteHow many animals do you think had to fit on the ark? This goes into long discussion that has already been done here (e.g. created kinds, variation, natural selection). I do not have the time to spend hours upon hours rehashing the same old stuff. Whether you agree or disagree. Been there already... You just typed 53 words explaining how you don't have time to type either "yes" or "no" to Jakee's question. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #87 May 31, 2007 Quote How many animals do you think had to fit on the ark? I don't care. What I have done is point out a mathematical error in that 'good link' from your precious AiG friends that is so basic that to have made it they must be either a) completely scientifically illiterate or b) intentionally lying to you. That is what I want you to address - not the feasibility of the Ark story, but the lies (or incompetence) of one of your pet pseudo-scientific organisations. You brought up the link, you stated it was a good source, why won't you address the fact that it is fundamentally flawed?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #88 May 31, 2007 QuoteHow many animals do you think had to fit on the ark? Okay. To figure this out, we have to first go on the basis of reproductive separateness. For example, a lion and a housecat can't reproduce and have offspring that are either housecats or lions, so we have to treat them as separate species even though they're both basically feline, right? Ditto with houseflies and butterflies. So, working from there, we have: 4260 species of mammals 6787 species of reptiles 9703 species of bird 35,000 species of land mollusks 1,000,000 insects 44,000 arachnids That's a total of 1,093,750 species, and those are only todays modern species. I'm not including dinosaurs or anything that's already extinct, like the dodo or tasmanian tiger. As the bible gives numbers ranging from two to seven of each, that's more than 2,187,500 animals. And then, we've got to worry about what to feed the carnivores. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #89 May 31, 2007 QuoteHow many animals do you think had to fit on the ark? It is always the same. Why do the prophets could not directly address the questions asked? The question is very simple: the article you pointed as "one of the best sources" contains a fundamental flaw, which should be obvious to everyone with high school diploma. The flaw was pointed; do you still think this article is "one of the best sources"? You can answer "yes" or "no" if you have no time at all.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #90 June 1, 2007 I hope we didn't kill this thread with math. It was just getting interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #91 June 4, 2007 Looks like simple math is something our Bible adepts could not explain.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #92 June 5, 2007 QuoteOkay. To figure this out, we have to first go on the basis of reproductive separateness. For example, a lion and a housecat can't reproduce and have offspring that are either housecats or lions, so we have to treat them as separate species even though they're both basically feline, right? Ditto with houseflies and butterflies. So, working from there, we have: 4260 species of mammals 6787 species of reptiles 9703 species of bird 35,000 species of land mollusks 1,000,000 insects 44,000 arachnids That's a total of 1,093,750 species, and those are only todays modern species. I'm not including dinosaurs or anything that's already extinct, like the dodo or tasmanian tiger. As the bible gives numbers ranging from two to seven of each, that's more than 2,187,500 animals. Creationists do not say that all land species were on the Ark. All the different “kinds” of land animals that existed “at that time” were on the Ark. Today, there can be many species within a kind. Originally, there would have been one type of creature from which everything from a housecat to a lion would have developed to the present based on natural (and artificial) selection. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #93 June 5, 2007 >Originally, there would have been one type of creature from which >everything from a housecat to a lion would have developed to the present >based on natural (and artificial) selection. So in 6000 years you could go from a gray wolf to a chihuahua and a great dane, but in 65 million years there is NO WAY you could go from a tiny mammal to a primate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #94 June 5, 2007 Quote So in 6000 years you could go from a gray wolf to a chihuahua and a great dane, but in 65 million years there is NO WAY you could go from a tiny mammal to a primate? Why not? You can go from a pure bred to a full blown mutt in one gestation period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #95 June 5, 2007 Quote>Originally, there would have been one type of creature from which >everything from a housecat to a lion would have developed to the present >based on natural (and artificial) selection. So in 6000 years you could go from a gray wolf to a chihuahua and a great dane, but in 65 million years there is NO WAY you could go from a tiny mammal to a primate? Yep, for creationists evolution happens both amazingly quickly yet also not at all. If ever there was a group of people that exemplified doublethink and crimestop it is modern day creationists.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #96 June 5, 2007 So the different land species evolved from the kinds of animals that were on the ark? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #97 June 5, 2007 Also, how many humans were on the Ark? with would, surely have been a small number, the gene pools would have been too small and thus mosy people today would have webbed fingers and played banjo (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #98 June 5, 2007 QuoteSo in 6000 years you could go from a gray wolf to a chihuahua and a great dane, but in 65 million years there is NO WAY you could go from a tiny mammal to a primate? It's the difference between observational science, what we can observe and test with repeatable results and historical science, based on a belief about our origins. Adding the "magic ingredient" of "millions" or even "billions" of years doesn't change what we see and can prove. It only influences what some believe because the alternative is very uncomfortable and inconvenient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #99 June 5, 2007 Quote Also, how many humans were on the Ark? with would, surely have been a small number, the gene pools would have been too small and thus mosy people today would have webbed fingers and played banjo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrE_ACbdLtMDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #100 June 5, 2007 QuoteSo the different land species evolved from the kinds of animals that were on the ark? It depends on exactly what you mean by "evolved." But then again... we've been through all this before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
