Broccoli and BackSpace on YEC
Friar Broccoli
As per your request, I have started a new thread from:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d5dd315e4ed2e1f9
First my apologies for the length of this post. I really did
leave a lot out to keep it short. Since you seemed most
interested in the question of how the Kangaroos got back to
Australia I moved that up to the start. Then I did "light from
distant galaxies in 6000 years", ending with the indications
from Genesis 4 that human ancestors lived before Adam.
So here goes:
On Jan 25, 3:31 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 4:28 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2) After Noah's flood, how did the kangaroos get back to
>> Australia? (Note that kangaroos are just an example. Unique
>> geographically isolated groups of species, including fresh
>> water fish, are found all over the planet.)
>
> The kangaroo questionhttp://www.icr.orghave answered somewhere. You
> know the answer to the question and if you don't you can pick up the
> phone and ask them or order a book where they will give you an answer.
> But then again you do know the creationist answer and I would like to
> know as well, so if you would start a new thread with the answer
> please.
Well interestingly I couldn't find an "answer" to this question
on either the AIG or ICR websites. Odd that, it's a well known
question so you'd think they would be anxious make the answer
easy to find. But maybe I didn't look hard enough.
However, I did find a very complete effort to answer the
question here:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html
For the water crossing to Australia this site suggests:
"a lowering of the sea level during an ice age (which locked
up water in the ice) to create land bridges, enabling
dry-land passage [...] The existence of some deep-water
stretches along the route to Australia is still consistent
with this explanation."
Well, I'm sorry, but it is inconsistent, the Makassar strait
between Borneo and Sulawesi/Celebes as well as channels on both
sides of Timor are 3000 meters (10,000 feet) or more deep. To
create a land bridge there would require an ice sheet about 4
miles thick over EVERY land surface on the planet. Wouldn't
this have made it difficult for the migrating Kangaroos to find
food to eat?
For the 5000 plus mile walk to Australia they suggest:
"Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate,
relatively slowly, over many generations."
So let me get this straight:
69 species of Kangaroos (if we include wallabies) spent a couple
of hundred years migrating to Australia, but none of the much
faster moving placental animals like deer, antelope, horses or
buffalo got there ahead of them. Odd that.
Same story with the Koalas. They made it first, despite the
fact that just about every new world and old world placental
monkey is faster moving.
Same story with Wombats. They made it first, despite the fact
that placental rabbits and hares are both faster moving and
faster breeding.
The site goes on to say:
"The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established
daughter populations in different parts of the world, most of
which subsequently became extinct. Perhaps those marsupials
only survived in Australia because they migrated there ahead
of the placental mammals (we are not suggesting anything other
than "random" processes in choice of destination), and were
subsequently isolated from the placentals, and so protected
from competition and predation."
Which begs the question: How did all those slower moving
marsupials make it there ahead of their faster moving (and much
more numerous) placental cousins?
And talking about predation, if the placental predators were
such a problem, why weren't all the kangaroos eaten before they
got anywhere close to Australia? In a normal ecology, prey must
outnumber predators by AT LEAST 20 to 1, so after they got off
the Ark the predators would have made short work of the
relatively easy to catch kangaroos.
There are many other problems with the "explanation" presented
on this page, and I haven't even raised huge amounts conflicting
evidence from:
- radio active dating methods. There are about 10 different
types. (I am a particular fan of "uranium fission track")
- lake and ocean seasonal sediment deposits (varves)
- Ice core samples from the Arctic and Antarctic
- Tree ring dating
- The plant and animal fossil record (I particularly like
Trilobites - but I use the human fossil record sometimes too)
Also we now have a pretty good fossil record for kangaroos
themselves, showing how they evolved over the last 20 million
years.
- The huge amount of DNA evidence that shows how closely species
are related.
Despite the problems, I have never seen a better attempt than
the one on this web page to explain how the Kangaroos got to
Australia after Noah's flood. If you can find a better one, I
would love to hear about it.
>> 1) The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest major Galaxy to our Milky
>> Way Galaxy. It is a bit more than 2,000,000 light years away.
>
>> How did light from Andromeda get here in 6000 years?
>
> I reject the premise of your question. What came before time, space
> and matter, the Logos or Language. Jesus Christ is Language and by
> his language he created the cosmos and determined the speed of light
> itself. And being God he could have made the speed of light anything
> he wanted at the instant of creation itself.
> Since there was no matter or human observers of physics before Christ
> spoke electromagnetism and gravity etc. into existence you therefore
> can't extrapolate backwards from our present observations (note
> observations not laws, there is no such thing as a law of physics).
> When Christ speaks a new heaven and new universe into existence after
> the Great White throne judgement, the Second "law" of thermodynamics
> will not be able to prevent Language himself from changing matter
> itself. Read the book by Prof.Herrmannhttp://www.raherrmann.com"Your
> endangered mind" where he explains with his math of Ultralogics that
> you can't apply the observations of physics as we understand them
> today and apply them into the distant future or past since nobody was
> there back then to take measurements.
If I understand your arguments above they can be summarized as
follows:
1) We cannot see what happened in the past.
2) The speed of light MUST?? have been faster in the past.
On the first point, astronomy is unique among sciences in that
we very definitely can see what happened in the past, because
light brings information about passed events directly to us.
Assuming the current speed of light, we can see well out to
about 7 billion light years (ly), fairly well to about 11
billion ly and somewhat out to 13.5 billion ly.
On the second point, we have a large amount of evidence that
the speed of light must have been the same in the past, but
understanding that evidence depends on a reasonable
understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum which includes
(from lower to higher frequencies) radiation like:
- radio waves
- radar waves
- microwaves
- infrared (heat)
- ordinary visible light (red to blue)
- ultraviolet light
- xrays and
- gamma rays
Also required is a basic understanding of nuclear fusion which
is the mechanism used by stars for converting lighter elements
like hydrogen and helium into heavier elements like oxygen and
iron etc.
Because of the complexity of these arguments I would like to
try and avoid them and use the following (hopefully) simpler
explanation:
First, let's first suppose that you are correct and the
universe is 6,000 years old and the speed of light was faster
in the past, allowing light from Andromeda to reach us.
Now imagine 2 beams of light, one coming from Andromeda (2
million ly away), and the other from another galaxy directly
behind Andromeda which is 6 billion ly away. And imagine that
these two beams are aimed so that they pass halfway between the
earth and moon.
Now for the beam of light from Andromeda to reach us in 6000
years the speed of light must be at least 350 times faster than
it is now, but of course that's not fast enough, because the
light from the second distant galaxy must also get here, so the
speed of light must actually have been AT LEAST 1,000,000 times
faster than it is today.
Now lets go back and consider the beam from Andromeda. When
light was travelling 350 times faster, that beam stretched from
Andromeda to Earth, but now it stretches from Andromeda to some
place about 6 billion ly on the other side of earth. So if you
imagine that beam as a very long elastic, it is as if you had
stretched it to be almost 3000 times longer than it originally
was (from 2 million ly long to 6 billion ly long).
This means that each part of the beam must now have 1/3000th
the energy we would have expected in the first example. In
fact, when light looses energy in his way it stretches to
longer and longer wavelengths so in this example if the light
from Andromeda had started out as visible light with a
wavelength of about .00006cm it would have arrived here as
far-infrared light with a much longer wavelength of about .02cm
If you understood the above example then you will realize that
the same thing would happen to the light from stars that are
6000 light years away. Light from those stars would be
stretched at least 1,000,000 times. So visible light from
those stars would arrive here with a 60cm wavelength which is
the same as a radar signal! Since we can see a few individual
stars with the naked eye at 10,000 ly away (like Rho
Cassiopeiae a yellow hypergiant) we know that we can see
visible light at that distance.
So, in short, increasing the speed of light in the past will
have very obvious effects on the light we see and we don't see
those effects.
>> 3) In Genesis 4:14 Cain says to God:
>
>> "Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the
>> ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a
>> vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me
>> will kill me."
>>
>> Who do you think Cain feared would kill him?
> This seems to be a variant of where did Cain get his wife,
> which http://www.answersingenesis.org have answered. Cain
> married his sister.
I would like to start with the new point you raised here. The
idea that Cain married his sister (who we have no reason to
believe even existed) is pure speculation, unsupported by
anything suggested in Genesis.
In fact Cain could not have married his sister. Why? Well
the explanation is found in "alleles".
An allele refers to a DNA coding region (or position on a
chromosome) which can be occupied by several different versions
of one gene. The example commonly given is blood type. A gene
at one location codes for either A, B, or O blood type. Thus
Adam could have had one copy of A and one copy of B while Eve
had say an O and an A. This isn't a problem because one person
can have two alleles, one on each pair of chromosomes, and
therefore they could have carried the blood types for all their
descendants.
However, no one can have more than two versions of a gene at
one location, and some genes come in a lot more than 4
versions. The most extreme example known is the Major
Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) which is a key part of the
immune system.
From the wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex
we read:
"One of the most striking features of the MHC, particularly
in humans, is the astounding allelic diversity found
therein, and especially among the nine classical genes. In
humans, the most conspicuously-diverse loci, HLA-A, HLA-B,
and HLA-DRB1, have roughly 250, 500, and 300 known alleles
respectively -- diversity truly exceptional in the human
genome."
Since the HLA-B gene has 500 alleles we can be certain that our
recent ancestral population could never have had smaller than
250 individuals (and even this number is unrealistically low).
Adam and Eve where just two people. That's not nearly enough.
There had to be other unrelated people in our ancestral line
to account for this genetic diversity.
But even if Cain's wife was his sister, that still would not
tell us who Cain was afraid would kill him in Gen 4:14.
Unless there were other unrelated people around, Cain was alone
except for his parents, because Seth wasn't born until after
Able was killed. And Cain certainly couldn't have been afraid
of his parents, because if they had been the problem he would
would have been afraid to stay, but he was afraid to leave.
So where does this leave us?
As far as I can tell:
The Bible clearly indicates that there were other people around
when Adam came into existence, which implies that the earth
must have been more the 6000 years old then.
On top of that, ALL the relevant physical evidence tells us
that the earth is billions of years old.
So God has left us with lots of evidence of many types that the
earth is old, and NONE that it is young.
So why won't you accept God's very clear message that the earth
is old?
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
TomS
<516ae967-0075-4c14...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Friar
Broccoli stated..."
[...snip...]
>For the 5000 plus mile walk to Australia they suggest:
>
> "Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate,
> relatively slowly, over many generations."
>
>So let me get this straight:
>
>69 species of Kangaroos (if we include wallabies) spent a couple
>of hundred years migrating to Australia, but none of the much
>faster moving placental animals like deer, antelope, horses or
>buffalo got there ahead of them. Odd that.
We might take a page from the creationists' anti-evolution
arguments, and ask about the probability that all of the species
of kangaroos, and none of the species of placental mammals,
would coincidentally make this migration.
This has the appearance of a complex, specified situation
which is highly improbable, and therefore must be due to
a purposeful decision. In other words, "intelligent design".
The creationist response, that it was just a matter of chance,
does not seem adequate.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ernest Major
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> writes
>"On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:05:57 -0800 (PST), in article
><516ae967-0075-4c14...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Friar
>Broccoli stated..."
>[...snip...]
>>For the 5000 plus mile walk to Australia they suggest:
>>
>> "Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate,
>> relatively slowly, over many generations."
>>
>>So let me get this straight:
>>
>>69 species of Kangaroos (if we include wallabies) spent a couple
>>of hundred years migrating to Australia, but none of the much
>>faster moving placental animals like deer, antelope, horses or
>>buffalo got there ahead of them. Odd that.
>[...snip...]
>
>We might take a page from the creationists' anti-evolution
>arguments, and ask about the probability that all of the species
>of kangaroos, and none of the species of placental mammals,
>would coincidentally make this migration.
Point of pedantry - well over a quarter of Australia's native mammals
are placentals. Apart from bats, ceteceans and pinnipeds, well known for
reaching the parts that other mammals don't reach, they mostly belong to
one small group of rodents, but there are a few species of Rattus.
>
>This has the appearance of a complex, specified situation
>which is highly improbable, and therefore must be due to
>a purposeful decision. In other words, "intelligent design".
>
>The creationist response, that it was just a matter of chance,
>does not seem adequate.
>
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Frank J
> Hi BackSpace;
>
> As per your request, I have started a new thread from:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d5dd315e4ed2e1f9
>
> First my apologies for the length of this post. I really did
> leave a lot out to keep it short. Since you seemed most
> interested in the question of how the Kangaroos got back to
> Australia I moved that up to the start. Then I did "light from
> distant galaxies in 6000 years", ending with the indications
> from Genesis 4 that human ancestors lived before Adam.
>
> So here goes:
>
> On Jan 25, 3:31 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 4:28 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2) After Noah's flood, how did the kangaroos get back to
> >> Australia? (Note that kangaroos are just an example. Unique
> >> geographically isolated groups of species, including fresh
> >> water fish, are found all over the planet.)
>
*not* want students to critically analyze YEC "explanations"?
TomS
<L7oZEwm3...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major stated..."
>
>In message <211451992.000...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS
><TomS_...@newsguy.com> writes
>>"On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:05:57 -0800 (PST), in article
>><516ae967-0075-4c14...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Friar
>>Broccoli stated..."
>>[...snip...]
>>>For the 5000 plus mile walk to Australia they suggest:
>>>
>>> "Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate,
>>> relatively slowly, over many generations."
>>>
>>>So let me get this straight:
>>>
>>>69 species of Kangaroos (if we include wallabies) spent a couple
>>>of hundred years migrating to Australia, but none of the much
>>>faster moving placental animals like deer, antelope, horses or
>>>buffalo got there ahead of them. Odd that.
>>[...snip...]
>>
>>We might take a page from the creationists' anti-evolution
>>arguments, and ask about the probability that all of the species
>>of kangaroos, and none of the species of placental mammals,
>>would coincidentally make this migration.
>
>Point of pedantry - well over a quarter of Australia's native mammals
>are placentals. Apart from bats, ceteceans and pinnipeds, well known for
>reaching the parts that other mammals don't reach, they mostly belong to
>one small group of rodents, but there are a few species of Rattus.
Thank you. I should have known better.
>>
>>This has the appearance of a complex, specified situation
>>which is highly improbable, and therefore must be due to
>>a purposeful decision. In other words, "intelligent design".
>>
>>The creationist response, that it was just a matter of chance,
>>does not seem adequate.
>>
>>
>
--
Martin Andersen
[snip: nice post]
> On the first point, astronomy is unique among sciences in that
> we very definitely can see what happened in the past, because
> light brings information about passed events directly to us.
> Assuming the current speed of light, we can see well out to
> about 7 billion light years (ly), fairly well to about 11
> billion ly and somewhat out to 13.5 billion ly.
>
constant.
[snip: nice post]
Friar Broccoli
After a little reflection I have decided to play difficult on
this point.
I am aware of the distinction, but don't really know how to
think about it, much less make it clear to others, and I believe
you have the same problem.
You referred to "13 odd billion years ago" a time measurement, and
then
went on to say it was actually "further" (farther?).
Were you implying that the BB actually happened 40 billion years ago?
If you actually meant light years, are you sure how to define a
light-year in this context? I'm sure not. I'm not even sure what a
meaningful definition of mega-parsec would be in this context.
So I just avoid the issue in the hope that it will go away.
>
> [snip: nice post]
Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.
Martin Andersen
> On Jan 28, 9:43 am, Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>
>> [snip: nice post]
>>> On the first point, astronomy is unique among sciences in that
>>> we very definitely can see what happened in the past, because
>>> light brings information about passed events directly to us.
>>> Assuming the current speed of light, we can see well out to
>>> about 7 billion light years (ly), fairly well to about 11
>>> billion ly and somewhat out to 13.5 billion ly.
>> That's 13 odd billion years ago, but much further due to the hubble
>> constant.
>
> After a little reflection I have decided to play difficult on
> this point.
>
> I am aware of the distinction, but don't really know how to
> think about it, much less make it clear to others, and I believe
> you have the same problem.
>
> You referred to "13 odd billion years ago" a time measurement, and
> then
> went on to say it was actually "further" (farther?).
>
farther it is. What was emitted 13.7 billion years ago is reaching us
now from matter that is now 46.5 billion light years away.
> Were you implying that the BB actually happened 40 billion years ago?
>
No.
> If you actually meant light years, are you sure how to define a
> light-year in this context? I'm sure not. I'm not even sure what a
> meaningful definition of mega-parsec would be in this context.
>
The light-year unit is a static and well defined distance. Light that
was emitted when the universe stopped being completely opaque is
reaching us now from 46.5 billion light years away. Not merely something
'age of universe'*'speed of light' away. That is, what you wrote though.
If you want to go by the distance the matter that emitted the light had
from us at the time of emission, the answer would be around 40 million
light-years. It's been "racing" against the cosmic expansion for 13.7
billion years.
> So I just avoid the issue in the hope that it will go away.
>
>> [snip: nice post]
>
> Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe#Size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe#Misconceptions
chris thompson
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 9:43 am, Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> >> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> >> [snip: nice post]
> >>> On the first point, astronomy is unique among sciences in that
> >>> we very definitely can see what happened in the past, because
> >>> light brings information about passed events directly to us.
> >>> Assuming the current speed of light, we can see well out to
> >>> about 7 billion light years (ly), fairly well to about 11
> >>> billion ly and somewhat out to 13.5 billion ly.
> >> That's 13 odd billion years ago, but much further due to the hubble
> >> constant.
>
> > After a little reflection I have decided to play difficult on
> > this point.
>
> > I am aware of the distinction, but don't really know how to
> > think about it, much less make it clear to others, and I believe
> > you have the same problem.
>
> > You referred to "13 odd billion years ago" a time measurement, and
> > then
> > went on to say it was actually "further" (farther?).
>
> English isn't my first language. If the correct spelling is "farther",
> farther it is. What was emitted 13.7 billion years ago is reaching us
> now from matter that is now 46.5 billion light years away.
I think the issue Friar is talking about is this: at first, you
mention the time scale, since you use the phrase "13 billion years
ago". However, later, you refer to distance, when you mention those
galaxies are further away at this moment.
It's easy to conflate distance and time when using light-years.
Chris
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
Thanks for your intervention. That was indeed ONE of the problems
I was refering to, but there are others, all mixtures of linguistic
and
conceptual vagaries.
Chief among them is what is "NOW"? Is it where those other
galaxies have moved too "now"? Or is it the "now" that was when
we separated? I could be referring to at least 3 different "now"s
here but only have two different ways of referring to it in english,
and presumably german has a similar problem.
And of course light-year DOES have a well defined meaning, but
just how far is that "now"? I think it depends on which "now" you
are referring to, and explaining which one it is, isn't always
obvious.
> > > Were you implying that the BB actually happened 40 billion years ago?
>
> > No.
>
> > > If you actually meant light years, are you sure how to define a
> > > light-year in this context? I'm sure not. I'm not even sure what a
> > > meaningful definition of mega-parsec would be in this context.
>
> > The light-year unit is a static and well defined distance. Light that
> > was emitted when the universe stopped being completely opaque is
> > reaching us now from 46.5 billion light years away. Not merely something
> > 'age of universe'*'speed of light' away. That is, what you wrote though.
>
> > If you want to go by the distance the matter that emitted the light had
> > from us at the time of emission, the answer would be around 40 million
> > light-years. It's been "racing" against the cosmic expansion for 13.7
> > billion years.
>
> > > So I just avoid the issue in the hope that it will go away.
>
> > >> [snip: nice post]
>
> > > Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe#Sizehttp://en.wikip...-
Ken Denny
And here I sit
Hand on the telephone
Hearing a voice I'd known
A couple of light years ago
Ferrous Patella
646921...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> Which begs the question
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
(Sorry. I am snowed in today and have too much time on my hands.)
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in news:516ae967-0075-4c14-a471-
> 646921bc3...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Which begs the question
>
> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Ya, AFTER I had posted it occured to me that I had screwed
up on that, but I figured if somebody called me on it I'd make
up some kind of story about common usage or some such
thing.
So that's what happened, I knew what it meant but ...
>
> (Sorry. I am snowed in today and have too much time on my hands.)
Well, I'm glad you couldn't come up with anything more substantive
than that.
Where is it snowing today? Or was that last night?
Martin Andersen
> I think the issue Friar is talking about is this: at first, you
> mention the time scale, since you use the phrase "13 billion years
> ago". However, later, you refer to distance, when you mention those
> galaxies are further away at this moment.
>
> It's easy to conflate distance and time when using light-years.
>
Yes. Which is why I posted in the first place.
John Wilkins
My all time favourite gripe!
One begs the question by assuming the conclusion in the premises. One
*raises* a question by introducing a topic. Now go write that one
hundred times and leave it on my desk.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Friar Broccoli
> Ferrous Patella <FerrousPate...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in news:516ae967-0075-4c14-a471-
>> 646921bc3...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Which begs the question
>
>
>> (Sorry. I am snowed in today and have too much time on my hands.)
>
> My all time favourite gripe!
>
> One begs the question by assuming the conclusion in the premises. One
> *raises* a question by introducing a topic. Now go write that one
> hundred times and leave it on my desk.
From this, I cannot tell which side you are taking, and for me
this looks like a rather ambigious situation:
My original statement was:
"Which begs the question: How did all those slower moving
marsupials make it there ahead of their faster moving (and much
more numerous) placental cousins?"
refering back to the proposal that:
"Perhaps those marsupials only survived in Australia because they
migrated there ahead of the placental mammals"
That proposal can be reorganized as:
premise:
Perhaps
because they migrated there ahead of the placental mammals
conclusion:
those marsupials only survived in Australia
So was the author:
raising the issue of fast migration as a possibility
("perhaps") to explain an observation
or
assuming fast migration to justify a conclusion she had
already reached?
If you think there is a clear answer, I would be interested in
knowing.
On a completely different issue, I noticed that no one has
commented on (or even quoted) the third part of my post on Cain,
and Adam and Eve's alleles. Was it cut off or did people just
get tired of reading?
Friar Broccoli
> So was the author:
> raising the issue of fast migration as a possibility
> ("perhaps") to explain an observation
> or
> assuming fast migration to justify a conclusion she had
> already reached?
I put this bit badly:
assuming faster migration as a necessary component of
the conclusion she had already reached (early arrival)?
chris thompson
I don't pretend to know who's right and who's wrong here, if those
terms even have any meaning in this context.
I tried to remain carefully neutral in my statement. I just tried to
point out what I thought was the issue.
Chris
John Wilkins
> On Jan 28, 6:31 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > Ferrous Patella <FerrousPate...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in news:516ae967-0075-4c14-a471-
> >> 646921bc3...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >>> Which begs the question
> >
> >> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
> >
> >> (Sorry. I am snowed in today and have too much time on my hands.)
> >
> > My all time favourite gripe!
> >
> > One begs the question by assuming the conclusion in the premises. One
> > *raises* a question by introducing a topic. Now go write that one
> > hundred times and leave it on my desk.
>
>
> From this, I cannot tell which side you are taking, and for me
> this looks like a rather ambigious situation:
>
> My original statement was:
>
> "Which begs the question: How did all those slower moving
> marsupials make it there ahead of their faster moving (and much
> more numerous) placental cousins?"
When I was merely pointing out that it just *raises* that question, not
begs it.
>
> refering back to the proposal that:
>
> "Perhaps those marsupials only survived in Australia because they
> migrated there ahead of the placental mammals"
>
>
>
> That proposal can be reorganized as:
>
> premise:
> Perhaps
> because they migrated there ahead of the placental mammals
>
> conclusion:
> those marsupials only survived in Australia
>
>
> So was the author:
> raising the issue of fast migration as a possibility
> ("perhaps") to explain an observation
> or
> assuming fast migration to justify a conclusion she had
> already reached?
>
>
> If you think there is a clear answer, I would be interested in
> knowing.
Begging a question doesn't mean one has no prior positions, nor does it
mean one cannot try to account for anomalies and problems for a view. It
means that a formal argument, an inference not an implication, cannot
assume the conclusion. If your OP had said
"Marsupials survived because they migrated faster than placentals, and
we know that because marsupials survived", then *that* would beg the
question.
>
>
>
> On a completely different issue, I noticed that no one has
> commented on (or even quoted) the third part of my post on Cain,
> and Adam and Eve's alleles. Was it cut off or did people just
> get tired of reading?
>
I sample at random. I missed it.
A.Carlson
And is it just a coincidence that these mammals are only of the type
that could have flown or rafted there across Wallace's Line (or
Lydekker's Line - take your pick, the concept is the same)?
The complexity of species distribution and how it so nicely coincides
with the fossil record in conjunction with continental drift stands as
a strong testament to the validity of the ToE. It is bad enough that
Creationists try to come up with some highly convoluted
rationalizations to defend their own fairytales. It is worse that
they do this in a vain attempt to deny the far more blatantly obvious.
Friar Broccoli
Thank you very much for that clear and complete explanation.
Friar Broccoli
I feel very badly about this exchange.
My first reply to yours was really meant to be playful.
I am pretty sure we agree on the facts.
TomS
<4676dba1-7f30-44ec...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Friar
Broccoli stated..."[...snip...]
>> Begging a question doesn't mean one has no prior positions, nor does it
>> mean one cannot try to account for anomalies and problems for a view. It
>> means that a formal argument, an inference not an implication, cannot
>> assume the conclusion. If your OP had said
>>
>> "Marsupials survived because they migrated faster than placentals, and
>> we know that because marsupials survived", then *that* would beg the
>> question.
>
>Thank you very much for that clear and complete explanation.
Wikipedia has an article: "Begging the question".
Martin Andersen
Martin Andersen
immediately agree with. None of which happens to be central to any point
you were making.
Gerry Murphy
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:516ae967-0075-4c14...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Is the subject of this thread a nouvelle cuisine menu item?
Friar Broccoli
> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:516ae967-0075-4c14...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> Is the subject of this thread a nouvelle cuisine menu item?
Well; that was the intent, but I'm having difficulty obtaining one
of the ingredients.