Forums | MacLife

Zeno was good at formulating paradoces. Pity the schools are still teaching calculus, though. Maybe the Discovery Institute can work on that.

KingFred wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

gozer wrote:

noah saved ... the blind cave fish.

I've always guessed that he didn't really need to save fish and other water-dwelling creatures.

He would have had to since the water would have greatly changed in salinity levels due to 40 days of downpour and water levels rising several thousand feet (to cover the highest mountains) and either saltwater critters would have perished in the lower salinity levels of rainwater or freshwater critters would have perished in the now brackish water. Unless, of course, the saltwater fish evolved very very very quickly into freshwater fish (or vice versa) and then within about a year DEvolved back to strictly saltwater fish once the water levels returned to normal (and the salt magically evaporated from what was previously freshwater lakes and rivers).

We don't know the salinity of the flood, that isn't given.
It does say the fountains of the deep came forth.

But anyway - yes, there would have been a salinity problem.
My own suspicion is the the majority of sea life perished in the flood, and a lot of the species of fish we have today did evolve - from other fish though, repriducing after their own kind just like Genesis said they would (kind was a broad term for type of animal - not species specific, see the food laws to see that clear distinction).

I'm sure though that there was some supernatural intervention with the sea life, as well as all the land animals on the ark itself. If there was a worldwide flood, it is impossible to deny supernatural intervention (me thinks thats why people no like the flood) - so some species requiring supernatural intervention to survive is not a deal breaker on wether there was a flood or not. If there was no supernatural intervention, almost nothing would have survived that kind of cataclysmic event.

Incidentally - the conditions after the flood are perfect for speciation to take place - which ID does not object to. Small populations in a radically new environment.

resedit wrote:

NAG wrote:

*waits for res to say ID is testable yet not give an example*

You'll be waiting awhile because I've already stated that the methodology is to demonstrate paradox in random design - thus leaving ID as the only possible answer.

ID doesn't claim the ability to put God in a test tube and prove he exists. It never has.

So saying one thing isn't correct is congruent to proving something else is?

Well, I find the Bible to be riddled with paradoxes. Does that prove atheism correct?

mr. penguin wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Is your dad posting? No? Then shut up.

but perhaps he's learned something, unlike you, you wart hog faced buffoon.
(sorry I'm late to the party)

Yeah ... and you were missed.

this guy is a senile old quack, right?

resedit wrote:

KingFred wrote:

He would have had to since the water would have greatly changed in salinity levels due to 40 days of downpour and water levels rising several thousand feet (to cover the highest mountains) and either saltwater critters would have perished in the lower salinity levels of rainwater or freshwater critters would have perished in the now brackish water. Unless, of course, the saltwater fish evolved very very very quickly into freshwater fish (or vice versa) and then within about a year DEvolved back to strictly saltwater fish once the water levels returned to normal (and the salt magically evaporated from what was previously freshwater lakes and rivers).

We don't know the salinity of the flood, that isn't given.
It does say the fountains of the deep came forth.

But anyway - yes, there would have been a salinity problem.
My own suspicion is the the majority of sea life perished in the flood, and a lot of the species of fish we have today did evolve - from other fish though, repriducing after their own kind just like Genesis said they would (kind was a broad term for type of animal - not species specific, see the food laws to see that clear distinction).

I'm sure though that there was some supernatural intervention with the sea life, as well as all the land animals on the ark itself. If there was a worldwide flood, it is impossible to deny supernatural intervention (me thinks thats why people no like the flood) - so some species requiring supernatural intervention to survive is not a deal breaker on wether there was a flood or not. If there was no supernatural intervention, almost nothing would have survived that kind of cataclysmic event.

Incidentally - the conditions after the flood are perfect for speciation to take place - which ID does not object to. Small populations in a radically new environment.

So your response to the ridiculously illogical is indeed "God did it because he can". Thanks for clearing that up.

And how come you're arguing ID and not Creationism, anyway? Do you have a problem with Judeo-Christian Creationism? Do you feel it's plausible for the Designer to NOT be "God"?

KingFred wrote:

So your response to the ridiculously illogical is indeed "God did it because he can". Thanks for clearing that up.

It's only rediculous if you have already made up your mind to reject the possibility of the supernatural.

And how come you're arguing ID and not Creationism, anyway? Do you have a problem with Judeo-Christian Creationism? Do you feel it's plausible for the Designer to NOT be "God"?

ID and creationism do not conflict with each other.
Judeo-Christian Creationism simply specifies who the intelligent designer is.

KingFred wrote:

So again, why are you arguing ID and not Creationism?

I argue both - haven't you been reading this thread?
I prescribe to Intelligent Design, and I know who the designer is.

resedit wrote:

ID and creationism do not conflict with each other.
Judeo-Christian Creationism simply specifies who the intelligent designer is.

How many other world religions worship a 'creator' who supposedly created the universe, the earth, and humanity?

ID cuts out most of them, no?

Your response on the flood question demonstrates why this whole argument is pointless (and makes me wonder, as King Fred, why you even bother with this "ID" thing).  No opposing point can be disproved because anything questionable obviously occurred by some sort of 'magic.'

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

ID and creationism do not conflict with each other.
Judeo-Christian Creationism simply specifies who the intelligent designer is.

How many other world religions worship a 'creator' who supposedly created the universe, the earth, and humanity?

ID cuts out most of them, no?

No it doesn't.
ID itself does not state anything about who the creator is.
It is probably true that the majority of ID proponents are also creationist.

Your response on the flood question demonstrates why this whole argument is pointless (and makes me wonder, as King Fred, why you even bother with this "ID" thing).  No opposing point can be disproved because anything questionable obviously occurred by some sort of 'magic.'

ID says that nothing could be here except by some sort of 'magic'.
If you reject the possibility of the supernatural as a premise then you have already rejected ID and no matter how much evidence there is against evolution, it is what you will subscribe to because without the supernatural, a natural answer is the only possible answer.

I suspect that is the case with most (not all) of you.
Evolution is as obvious as gravity because you reject a creator, so evolution is the only means by which we could be here. That however is not objectivity. That is bias.

Oh, I'm also "biased" against space aliens, because I don't believe that they put us here either.

bratboy wrote:

Oh, I'm also "biased" against space aliens, because I don't believe that they put us here either.

Did you miss the giant comic on the previous page?

NAG wrote:

Don't you know that once ID is accepted and all darwinists (what is a darwinist anyway?) are burned alive...or stoned...stoning is fun for the whole family...that science will find the cure for cancer that the devil is hiding from us?

Haven't you read the "wedge" document? The goal is to destroy materialism as an ideology, and replace it with faith. Prayer, not science, will have to find the cure for cancer-- or perhaps not. Death is God's will, ya know. It reminds us all that humanity lives in sin.

Last edited by jerwin (2005-08-23 1:45 pm)