home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   talk.origins      Evolution versus creationism (sometimes      142,579 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 142,368 of 142,579   
   Mark Isaak to MarkE   
   Re: Chimp to human evolution - Sandwalk    
   02 Feb 26 09:00:26   
   
   From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 1/31/26 10:27 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 1/02/2026 12:49 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   >> On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100   
   >>>> MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2025-12-17, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps   
   >>>>>>> and   
   >>>>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and   
   >>>>>>> spaceflight, for example.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I would just make the observation that there were people only   
   >>>>>> about 150   
   >>>>>> years that said the similar things when comparing white people with   
   >>>>>> indigenous people.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and   
   >>>>> materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way.   
   >>>   
   >>> Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the   
   >>> standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and   
   >>> there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by   
   >>> definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to   
   >>> that.   
   >>   
   >> A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of)   
   >> nature", with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the   
   >> supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition   
   >> is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."   
   >   
   > You're saying that, by definition, God does not exist?   
      
   I'm saying that if God exists, God is not supernatural according to the   
   most literal definition of "supernatural".   
      
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca