A Serious Question: Why God made DNA

Originally posted by Halitose
My apologies.

I've reread (5), you get a resounding yes.

Very good.

Do you agree with this:

6) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and that new species is a product of intelligent design.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Very good.

Do you agree with this:

6) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and that new species is a product of intelligent design.

Yes

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes

Good.

Do you agree with this:

7) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in man, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and man is a product of intelligent design.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Good.

Do you agree with this:

7) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in man, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and man is a product of intelligent design.

Yes, with reservations.

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes

Describe your reservations. (7) follows logically from (6). Refer to the reference on implications if you need to.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Good.

Do you agree with this:

7) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in man, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and man is a product of intelligent design.

If the God depicted in the OT were to be the driving force behind this, it would not be neccessary as he would already have created man and animals seperately.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If the God depicted in the OT were to be the driving force behind this, it would not be neccessary as he would already has created man and animals seperately.

Do you believe (7) to be true or false? Please don't muddy the waters with immaterial claims.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Describe your reservations. (7) follows logically from (6).

Logically, yes. But I contend that process (2) through (4) doesn't allow for speciation beyond a kind, which I guess would be comparible to the biological classification of a suborder.

Originally posted by Halitose
Logically, yes. But I contend that process (2) through (4) doesn't allow for speciation beyond a kind, which I guess would be comparible to the biological classification of an order.

You still do not understand how the truth of an implication is evaluated. If its antecedent is false - which you seem to think is the case - then the implication itself is true. Do you follow, and do you accept that (7) is true?

The only way you can hold that (7) is false is if you actually believe that man did result from some process that used (2) through (4), and that man's emergence does not entail intelligent design. I don't think you believe both of these things, and thus I think you must believe that (7) is true.

Additonally, (7) follows directly from (6). You can't rationally believe (6) and not (7).

Think it over. I'll be back in an hour. We're quite near the end. There should be only two or three steps left, and you need not fear the conclusion. I promise you this: it won't be anything at all like "Therefore, man evolved from a lower species." In fact, I expect you will be quite comfortable and pleased with it.

Dr. S

P.S. If you're really hung up on (7) but you still accept (6), I'll withdraw (7) from consideration. It's really not a necessary premise of my argument.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You still do not understand how the truth of an implication is evaluated. If its antecedent is false - which you seem to think is the case - then the implication itself is true. Do you follow, and do you accept that (7) is true?

The only way you can hold that (7) is false is if you actually believe that man did result from some process th ...[text shortened]... ar the end. There should be only two or three steps left, and you need not fear the conclusion.

Your logic is impeccable as always Dr. I will have to backtrack to (6).

6) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and that new species is a product of intelligent design.

My acceptance of (6) is that (6) would be limited to a biological suborder.

Originally posted by Halitose
Your logic is impeccable as always Dr. I will have to backtrack to (6).

6) If a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species, such changes depend on an intelligent design, and that new species is a product of intelligent design.

My acceptance of (6) is that (6) would be limited to a biological suborder.

Do you agree that this is an impossible occurance:
"a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species"

If you do, then you find that the antecedent of (6) must be false, and thus you must find (6) itself to be true.

I'll be back shortly. Don't abandon this thread - I'm trying to give you a gift, but I will only give it on the condition that you understand it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you agree that this is an impossible occurance:
"a sort of animal's lineage exhibits changes via a process that makes use of (2) through (4) and results in a new species"

If you do, then you find that the antecedent of (6) must be false, and thus you must find (6) itself to be true.

I'll be back shortly. Don't abandon this thread - I'm trying to give you a gift, but I will only give it on the condition that you understand it.

(6) I'm fine with.
(7) is the one I'm hung up on.

Originally posted by Halitose
(6) I'm fine with.
(7) is the one I'm hung up on.

Forget (7) then.

Do you agree with this:

(8) The theory of evolution finds that there exists an animal whose
lineage has exhibited changes via a process that makes use of (2)
through (4), having resulted in a new species.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Forget (7) then.

Do you agree with this:

(8) The theory of evolution finds that there exists an animal whose
lineage has exhibited changes via a process that makes use of (2)
through (4), having resulted in a new species.

Yes.

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes.

Very good. We're almost there.

Do you agree that from (6) and (8), this follows:

(9) The changes postulated in (8) depend on an intelligent design, and the postulated new species is a product of intelligent design.