(January 28, 2010 at 11:47 am)rjh4 Wrote: So to that degree, I agree with you but I still think there is evidence of mankind having dominion over animals.

If that is the case I'd love to hear it.

(January 28, 2010 at 11:51 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(January 28, 2010 at 11:47 am)rjh4 Wrote: So to that degree, I agree with you but I still think there is evidence of mankind having dominion over animals.

If that is the case I'd love to hear it.

Given that mankind uses animals as needed and pretty much at will and the opposite is not the case (admitting that there is the occasional person that gets eaten by an animal), I think that constitutes observable confirmation that man has dominion over the animals.

There are viruses and bacteria out there that are killing us every day. We have some form of dominion over the larger beasts, but the smaller ones are always one step ahead of us (thanks to their ability to evolve and adapt faster).

I mean, come on, we still don't have a cure for the common cold. Flu can kill millions, and frequently does every year. It took 20 years and a global effort to get rid of smallpox, and there is no guarantee that it worked. Bacteria are the most evolved and complex organisms on the planet; they've literally been around since the "beginning". 4 billion years of evolution does a lot.

Great points Adrian, I personally did not even consider the microbiological world in this discussion.

(January 28, 2010 at 1:49 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Great points Adrian, I personally did not even consider the microbiological world in this discussion.

I agree. I did not consider this either. But...1) I am also not sure the microbiological world was within the purview of what Gen. 1:28 was talking about; and 2) Gen. 1:28 was before the fall so the dominion that man had before the fall could very well have been affected by it also.

Interesting points though, Adrian.

I wonder...on what grounds you say that bacteria are the most evolved and complex on the planet?

On the grounds that evolution is the mutation and subsequent selection of genes, and that therefore the organisms that have the highest rate of reproduction are the "most evolved".

Bacteria have a very high rate of reproduction, meaning there are more chances for mutation.

Humans in comparison have a very low rate of reproduction in comparison, meaning there are less chances for mutations to occur.

At some point back in the evolutionary history of life, some bacteria developed into multi-cellular organisms, and some didn't, remaining single-celled to this day (yet still evolving at a fast rate). The multi-cellular line's reproduction rate slowed as the organism got larger, since it is harder to replicate at such levels. Eventually the advent of sexual reproduction meant that reproduction rates were made abysmally slow in comparison.

As for "complexity", it's a term that is still confusing to define. How do you measure complexity from a subjective level? Not very well. One could argue that mentally we are more complex, but then again most other organisms have the ability to produce Vitamin C within themselves, and we cannot. Various other abilities we lack (or are inferior to other organisms) could also be used to measure complexity.

C-values (amount of DNA in he nucleus) have been suggested as a measure for certain aspects of complexity. Whilst science shows that C-values are not correlated with how complex organisms are, they are useful for showing a correlation between many other factors (such as organ complexity, cell division rate, and extinction risk). It has also been suggested that given the ambiguity of the word "complexity" and how you define it, that C-values would be a good starting point at coming up with a new picture of how "complex" organisms are.

   

(January 28, 2010 at 10:56 am)rjh4 Wrote: What type of evidence are you looking for? What would you accept?

(January 28, 2010 at 9:50 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So Rjh4, how old is the universe?

I am surprised you do not know my position on that issue. As I have said many times before here, mine is a young earth creation position so I think the universe is 6000-10000 years old.

Well, any evidence you care to present to either support the bible

or to show that the universe is in fact less than ten thousand years old would be good.

Remembering that there are whole mountain ranges of evidence to show otherwise.

I was trolling answersingenesis one time for a laugh( as I do on a regular basis) and I found an article

that claimed the formation of distant galaxies proved that the universe was only 6000 years old.

Can you see the flaw in this argument R4jh?

Rjh4,

Considering we are genetically animals and very genetically close indeed to say, other apes, I don't see on what grounds you would separate us from being animals.

Rjh4 Wrote:What kind of evidence would you accept in order to believe the Bible as historically accurate?

Minus all the supernatural parts - strong evidence from historians.

Quote:What kind of evidence would you accept in order to believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Well, to believe the word of God I'd have to believe there is a God to GIVE such a word... in which case since I consider God to be a hypothetical highly improbable creator of the universe, to believe he actually existed I'd need absurdly strong evidence. In fact I don't know if there can even be any evidence since I consider God to be more improbable than his creation so he only makes the matter much more improbable. But that's improbable of course - not impossible. Despite the fact that evidence for God seems impossible due to his unknowable characteristics, I also - being an agnostic on all matters - consider it impossible for me to know that there definitely can't be evidence for God. Maybe there can be... I do except the possibility even when I am doubtful of even if (as a mere possibility) - for I consider all matters to ultimately be unknowable.

But all that speculation being said, the important point is: Whether it's even possible for there to be (valid) evidence for God or not, either way, I'm certainly not going to believe in him without any.

EvF

Quote: (What would it take )...to believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Blow me!


(Jeez I've been waiting a long time to use that!)

I regard evolution as one of the best explanatory and predictive theories on the diversity of living organisms on Earth to date. While I'm also open to the hypothesis that viruses could be responsible for the mutations evident in many species, I do not "believe" or have "faith" in the study.

(January 26, 2010 at 10:41 am)rjh4 Wrote: It should be pretty clear from my posts elsewhere here that I believe that God created the universe. And while I do not have a problem with evolution in the sense that things/creatures change via natural selection, I reject evolution in the sense of common descent.

Which I'm fine with, except that Natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution. You either accept evolution as scientific fact or you don't rjh4. There is no in-between. You can't pick and choose like with the Bible.

(January 26, 2010 at 3:42 pm)rjh4 Wrote: So says you. You know that the classification system is manmade don't you? It is not like the classification system proves that we are animals just like all others.

That's a terrible argument that only demonstrates your ignorance. By your own omission then, we cannot use observation or deductive reasoning to class or categorise ANYTHING that exists from ANYTHING ELSE that exists. You can't attack the classification system because it's a human concept through reasoning; you're dismissing the same thing you're trying to build up a case against. Ironically though, you continually assert that man is distinguished from the rest of animal kingdom, so clearly you do have some kind arbitrary subjectively true "class system". ^^

Humour me rjh4, how do you distinguish your men's from the women's toilets?

Quote:(In fact, it is clear we are not just like all the other animals. As evidence you just need to look at the list of man's accomplishments cited by your athiest friends here. The animals have no such accomplishments. Man is far above the animals.)

(Evolution is not a ladder.)

(January 28, 2010 at 10:56 am)rjh4 Wrote: I disagree for reasons already stated.

Huh? You said earlier that you agree with the concept of Natural selection. This was the point I was making before, you can't agree and disagree with something simultaneously, so please, explain your position on Evolution.

rjh4 Wrote:I am surprised you do not know my position on that issue. As I have said many times before here, mine is a young earth creation position so I think the universe is 6000-10000 years old.

So you're saying that you disagree with Evolution purely because the biological changes to evolve from a common ancestor would've have taken a long time? Is that correct?