Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Because:

1. We didn't arise out of two one-celled prototype things.

1a. An opinion
1b. But when does one even call an evolved thing a human? And when did human ancestors start reproducing with two? Certainly, given evolution's premise of a one-celled thing, the first reproduction must have been asexual. Do you think that early human prototypes evolved the capability to reproduce with male/female exactly the same way, multiple times? I think it would be much more likely (not that I think it's very likely! ) for it to evolve once.

2. The genetic variation among different humans versus the genetic variation between a parent and off-spring is much greater.

What about over multiple generations?

See also: the visible affects of successive in-breeding, which is what would happen if everyone married their siblings and produced offspring.

Yes, given that mutations occur. The idea is that mutations were much less common back then, and the prohibition against marrying siblings came much later. Anyway, just some guesses about what might have happened to make it work, exactly like evolutionists make. By definition, none of us know what happened in pre-history! We're all making educated guesses.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

They're assuming God suspended menopause for Eve, I guess. Although taking the Bible literally, when combined with what we can observe of our own bodies, would leave to the impression that she lives to be in her hundreds (Adam passes 900, IIRC), but the childbirths stop when she's at most 60ish... so double ow if she had that many kids in 60 years.

But if lifespans were longer, why would menopause have to be at the same time?

And Rian, I wasn't proposing that homosexuality should necessarily be allowed under the "cultural differences" idea, just showing that it itself is a fuzzy idea that doesn't exactly bind the text closely.

I thought it was a very good question, and I wanted to share some of my musings on it and see what people thought

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

1a. An opinion

would you care to elaborate on this?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

1a. An opinion

No, it's not. This is how the Theory of Evolution works, which I don't feel like debating in the Theology thread.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

1b. But when does one even call an evolved thing a human?

There is some grey area around this.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And when did human ancestors start reproducing with two? Certainly, given evolution's premise of a one-celled thing, the first reproduction must have been asexual. Do you think that early human prototypes evolved the capability to reproduce with male/female exactly the same way, multiple times? I think it would be much more likely (not that I think it's very likely! ) for it to evolve once.

I thought you understood the basic points of the Theory of Evolution.

Theologically, I don't think that the Creation myth and ensuing generation times were meant to be taken literally. As in, they were not recording the exact year everything happened. The first date we actually know is when King Solomon was around, but in the Bible it isn't important when he or other people were around, what is important is the message of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

They're assuming God suspended menopause for Eve, I guess. Although taking the Bible literally, when combined with what we can observe of our own bodies, would leave to the impression that she lives to be in her hundreds (Adam passes 900, IIRC), but the childbirths stop when she's at most 60ish... so double ow if she had that many kids in 60 years.

This still strikes me as missing the point.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

No, it's not. This is how the Theory of Evolution works, which I don't feel like debating in the Theology thread.

Certainly it's an opinion, if it can't be proven. It's conjecture. How can it NOT be an opinion, if no one was there to observe it?

Originally Posted by BB

would you care to elaborate on this?

As I said above, it must be an opinion since no one observed it. It's just one of those things, like mixing up "its" and "it's" - it just catches my eye and bothers me. Evolution is a theory - the theory itself has evolved (no more spontaneous generation and Lamarck-ian passing on of traits developed thru use) and although it is by far the most popular among today's scientists, it certainly may be wrong. It's a historical science, like archaeology - it's not like Chemistry and Physics and other aspects of Biology. It involves conjecture about the past, based upon extrapolation of limited observations in the present. Who knows - maybe we DID evolve out of two one-celled prototype things! Who can say?

Originally Posted by Nurvi

I thought you understood the basic points of the Theory of Evolution.

What do you think I'm missing? (and I don't want to start evolution talk here, either, but I'd like to know what you mean )

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Certainly it's an opinion, if it can't be proven. It's conjecture. How can it NOT be an opinion, if no one was there to observe it?

As I said above, it must be an opinion since no one observed it. It's just one of those things, like mixing up "its" and "it's" - it just catches my eye and bothers me. Evolution is a theory - the theory itself has evolved (no more spontaneous generation and Lamarck-ian passing on of traits developed thru use) and although it is by far the most popular among today's scientists, it certainly may be wrong. It's a historical science, like archaeology - it's not like Chemistry and Physics and other aspects of Biology. It involves conjecture about the past, based upon extrapolation of limited observations in the present. Who knows - maybe we DID evolve out of two one-celled prototype things! Who can say?

take a lucky-dip 'pick and mix' heh?

oooh- that one looks juicy - mmmm, this one sure is sweet ....

so - how far do you wish to follow this 'conjecture' argument / obvious fallacy (logically) ?

and are you so certain of it we can all have mucho fun retrospcetively applying this infalliable wisdom to all you own previous posts and arguments here?

because i tell you now, quite honestly and with no other aim but the truth - it just won't wash.



Or do you wish to modify your haughty words here?

(or do you prefer us all to thus tear through and apart all your previous arguments here, dissecting your very own arguments by using your very own logic, here espoused?)

[Rían]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I've never claimed to KNOW the truth about things like God or evolution. I'm usually very careful to say "I think" or things like that, because I realize that no one can KNOW in a scientific sense about things in the past, like our origins. And so when Nurvi said "We didn't arise out of two one-celled prototype things" like it was known fact, I thought it was a pretty strong statement to make, so I pointed out that no one knows that for sure. I just think it's important to differentiate between facts and conjecture, and certainly it's conjecture that we came from one, or two, or even ANY one-celled prototype things - and people tend to say it like it's a fact when it isn't.

[Butterbeer]

then, on the same basis - you take back the "certainly" part of your statement?

which is it?

[Rían]

Do you mean in this sentence: "Certainly it's an opinion, if it can't be proven."

If so, no - that's not a statement about a guess about the past; it's a definition of a word.

Or wait, I just noticed it in another post - do you mean in this sentence: "... certainly it's conjecture that we came from one, or two, or even ANY one-celled prototype things".

Well, if that's the one you meant, then no, I don't take that back, either, because again, it's a definition of a word. If you're making a statement about something that you don't know for a fact, then it's conjecture. And no one knows for a fact where we came from, wouldn't you agree?

Unless you mean something else? I mean, there's facts, there's definitions, and then there's conjecture, and I think it's important to differentiate between them.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Certainly it's an opinion, if it can't be proven. It's conjecture. How can it NOT be an opinion, if no one was there to observe it?

Because thinking a theory is correct is not expressing an opinion. "I agree with the string theory," is not an opinion. "The string theory is rubbish/great/fun for children," is an opinion.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I said above, it must be an opinion since no one observed it. It's just one of those things, like mixing up "its" and "it's" - it just catches my eye and bothers me. Evolution is a theory - the theory itself has evolved (no more spontaneous generation and Lamarck-ian passing on of traits developed thru use) and although it is by far the most popular among today's scientists, it certainly may be wrong. It's a historical science, like archaeology - it's not like Chemistry and Physics and other aspects of Biology. It involves conjecture about the past, based upon extrapolation of limited observations in the present. Who knows - maybe we DID evolve out of two one-celled prototype things! Who can say?

Of course. Or maybe, we were placed fully formed on the Earth by God 6000 years ago. Who can say? They are theories. Ideas that other people think are good ideas, for which they provide evidence. As you mention later, ToE itself evolves (har har) - new ideas were added to the theory and more evidence was found.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What do you think I'm missing? (and I don't want to start evolution talk here, either, but I'd like to know what you mean )

Maybe I misread your post, but I thought you were implying that the first humans reproduced asexually.

ToE proposes, basically, that over billions of years, one-celled prototype thingies were selected for hardiness and some formed symbiotic relationships. These then reproduced asexually, as one-celled prototype thingies (OCPTs ) do, continuing to form sybiotic relationships with other OCTPs.

A note on symbiotic relationships: OCTPs would just randomly form symbiotic relationships, it's not like they made a conscious decision to work together. But, this advantage would mean that they would be more likely to survive to reproduce off-spring, thus, the increasing complexity described in ToE. Some would have relationships that weren't actually useful, so this would not give them an advantage to surviving and producing offspring.

Anyway, the complexity and diversity of the organisms became such that one of the organisms was human beings. These are very complicated organisms who reproduce thusly. One OCPT (sperm) attaches itself to another, different OCPT (egg). They divide, and form four cells, and so on, sex ed class etc.

This is sexual reproduction because only the male humans have sperm and the females have eggs.

I hope I've done good ol' ToE justice here.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think they often did mean "descendent of". Remember that Jesus himself is referred to as the "son of David." Frequently they skipped generations, preferring to refer to the more important ancestors. Which doesn't mean an error exists.

No, it doesn't. It just means you can't use the biblical lineages to calculate the age of the earth, as many people do.

The one in Isaiah 14, I agree isn't exactly explicit. Many of the prophecies of the Messiah aren't explicit either. Yet the Protestants I know do think of the Isaiah verses as referring to Lucifer.

And that is the "Catholic tradition" Falagar was referring to.

Many things can be seen as referred to in the Bible which at the same time as not explicit there.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

They're assuming God suspended menopause for Eve, I guess. Although taking the Bible literally, when combined with what we can observe of our own bodies, would leave to the impression that she lives to be in her hundreds (Adam passes 900, IIRC), but the childbirths stop when she's at most 60ish... so double ow if she had that many kids in 60 years.

It is generally held that in the time of the extended lifespan, people aged at a proportionally slower rate.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Because thinking a theory is correct is not expressing an opinion. "I agree with the string theory," is not an opinion. "The string theory is rubbish/great/fun for children," is an opinion.

That is correct. However, "I agree with the string theory" necessitates an opinion that the string theory is true.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That is correct. However, "I agree with the string theory" necessitates an opinion that the string theory is true.

Then would "I agree with hectorberlioz" necessitate an opinion that hectorberlioz is true? Be still my heart.

Maybe "correct" is the word we're looking for.

I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that we're kind of stranded at the basis of geometry. Euclidian geometry has postulates that Lobachevskian geometry doesn't use. They equally are 'true', but you can't use one to prove or disprove the other.

Likewise, we're unlikely to get anywhere attempting to prove or disprove issues like the age of creation without shared postulates.

[Butterbeer]

thus we end up with 'Rianisms'

[Lief Erikson]

I still intend to respond to the posts here addressed to me! It'll just take a little while before I can sufficiently get my act together. School presseth.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, it doesn't. It just means you can't use the biblical lineages to calculate the age of the earth, as many people do.

Fair point.
*Suddenly another thought occurs to Lief.*
And by the same token, one can't use it to calculate the length of time the human race has been around, can one? That's very interesting to ponder.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And that is the "Catholic tradition" Falagar was referring to.

Many things can be seen as referred to in the Bible which at the same time as not explicit there.

Yet the fall of Satan is much more explicit in at least one other scripture, as I mentioned. The Protestant view on this, at least in modern times, comes from the Bible rather than from Catholic tradition. I, at any rate, accept this story as true because it's in the Bible and not because it's in Catholic tradition . Not that Catholic tradition is bad, at all, and it might be all true. Though there are some parts that I really doubt, because they seem to contradict scripture, such as Mary's never having had any sexual intercourse with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus.

But I would like to see a different example of something in Protestant beliefs that is really rooted in Catholic tradition and not in the Bible.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Because thinking a theory is correct is not expressing an opinion. "I agree with the string theory," is not an opinion. "The string theory is rubbish/great/fun for children," is an opinion.

Whew, maybe our problem is just Canadianisms vs. Americanisms here. I know that I wouldn't say that I "agree with" a theory in the sense that I think you're using it; I'd say that I "agree with" a person, though (hence sis's remark).

I do "agree with" Gwai here, though, that if you "agree with the string theory", this is another way of saying that your opinion is that it's true/correct. Is that what you mean?

Maybe I misread your post, but I thought you were implying that the first humans reproduced asexually.

The first human ancestors did, according to the ToE, because the one-celled prototype is a human ancestor.

"OCPTs" - I like that!

Originally Posted by sis

Then would "I agree with hectorberlioz" necessitate an opinion that hectorberlioz is true?

I'd say it necessitates an opinion that hector exists/existed But the only way I've ever seen that phrase used is when you're talking about something that hector has said that you think is true.

Euclidian geometry has postulates that Lobachevskian geometry doesn't use. They equally are 'true', but you can't use one to prove or disprove the other.

The general idea behind postulates in math is that you assume them to be true without proof.

Likewise, we're unlikely to get anywhere attempting to prove or disprove issues like the age of creation without shared postulates.

Yes, issues like the age of creation rely on lots of assumptions.

Originally Posted by BB

thus we end up with 'Rianisms'

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm assuming it's a nice thing Anyway, I always mean to be nice and polite and considerate and thoughtful, but maybe I come off differently sometimes - typed communication is SOOOO difficult!!!!!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Whew, maybe our problem is just Canadianisms vs. Americanisms here. I know that I wouldn't say that I "agree with" a theory in the sense that I think you're using it; I'd say that I "agree with" a person, though (hence sis's remark).

I do "agree with" Gwai here, though, that if you "agree with the string theory", this is another way of saying that your opinion is that it's true/correct. Is that what you mean?

I just don't think that "agreement/disagreement with" means the same thing as "opinion of," is all.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The first human ancestors did, according to the ToE, because the one-celled prototype is a human ancestor.

Ancestors, yes. First actual humans, no.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"OCPTs" - I like that!

I took that from you - One-Celled Prototype Thingies. I like the word "thingies".

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The general idea behind postulates in math is that you assume them to be true without proof.

But the things that are true in math have been proven. Unless you're doing an iteration... Excel has broken my brain (economics lab). Help me math whiz!!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, issues like the age of creation rely on lots of assumptions.

I agree. That's why there is a theory that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, based on some logical assumptions. It's not necessarily true.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm assuming it's a nice thing Anyway, I always mean to be nice and polite and considerate and thoughtful, but maybe I come off differently sometimes - typed communication is SOOOO difficult!!!!!

*no comment*

on a personal level, i'd go with that - ... but i have a concern over intellectual honesty in your arguments, sometimes

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I just don't think that "agreement/disagreement with" means the same thing as "opinion of," is all.

ok, I think I see what you mean.

But the things that are true in math have been proven.

We're probably getting kinda nit-picky here, but sis was talking about postulates, and axioms and postulates are those things at the lowest level which are assumed to be true but not technically proven, generally because they're so obviously true. [/math nerd]

Originally Posted by BB

on a personal level, i'd go with that - ... but i have a concern over intellectual honesty in your arguments, sometimes

Well, I don't know what to say except I feel like I've been kicked in the gut I treasure honesty and truth, and that accusation is a terrible one. I don't know what you're basing that on, but if you have any examples, I'd sure like to see them. I can't think of a time that I've EVER been intellectually dishonest here, because it's such a repugnant thing to me. I treasure honesty above winning - I wouldn't want to "win" a debate by any type of dishonesty, because that only does a huge disservice to the people involved - so there's no reason for me to be dishonest, anyway. I'm very sorry you would think that of me The only reason that I can think of is that I will point out when I think people are stating an assumption/opinion as a fact, but I do that precisely because I treasure truth and honesty.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

We're probably getting kinda nit-picky here, but sis was talking about postulates, and axioms and postulates are those things at the lowest level which are assumed to be true but not technically proven, generally because they're so obviously true. [/math nerd]

They're not assumed to be true. They're agreed to be true. Quite different.

And that's why it's pertinent here. People coming in with different sets of basic rules will always cross talk.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, I don't know what to say except I feel like I've been kicked in the gut I treasure honesty and truth, and that accusation is a terrible one. I don't know what you're basing that on, but if you have any examples, I'd sure like to see them. I can't think of a time that I've EVER been intellectually dishonest here, because it's such a repugnant thing to me. I treasure honesty above winning - I wouldn't want to "win" a debate by any type of dishonesty, because that only does a huge disservice to the people involved - so there's no reason for me to be dishonest, anyway. I'm very sorry you would think that of me The only reason that I can think of is that I will point out when I think people are stating an assumption/opinion as a fact, but I do that precisely because I treasure truth and honesty.

How so?

Not on a personal level but on an intellectual level did i state that - or would you like me to go quote the original post?

Forgive me if i assume you intelligent enough to decipher between the two - the personal motive and dealings with the logic of the arguments or (and here is my rub) debateable techniques used willy nilly in your arguments)

I'm sorry Rian, but if you can't see the sheer blinding difference between the personal and the logic of debate ... and mix one as the other, despite the clear demarkation ...

one can only be "kicked in the guts" if it was personal -

one should be, to a degree, at least dispassionate about the validity or strength of one's arguments- and not confuse an "alleged personal attack" as you seem to personalise it so - ... with a critique of the logic you employ in your debate...


have the decency not to asume "a personal attack" when your logical arguments are questioned -

the issue i raise is more of questionable debating technique than 'dishonesty' - in the sense you seem to imply - though quite how, i am not sure?

Do not make personal, that which isn't so - but refers to the strength and nature of your argument.

BB x