Remember that Dutch comic about Mohamad?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Stratos The sceptic has no data here whatsoever. How would you propose the sceptic provides an alternative explanation with nothing to go on? For all that we know, a miracle story can be made up.

That's not true. I've given my example and the relevant data needed to evaluate it. I've listed the chronic illness I was diagnosed with. I've explained what that illness did to my body and described the results of that incident. All of this can be researched through the internet or asking those with medical knowledge.

To break it down to it's barest form, I've been diagnosed with a chronic illness called Chron's Disease. That disease attacked and killed my colon (large intestine), causing it to rupture. My body pumped waste material into my abdominal cavity for 30 hours before I finally got into an operating room. By that time, perotinitis (poison) had saturated my abdominal area. Given the period of time the perotinitis went untreated, the next logical step was for it to enter my bloodstream which would have been fatal.

While most doctors will hedge their answers by saying they would need to know the patient's medical history more thoroughly, if you ask them to evaluate the situation based on the information recieved, they will agree that the perotinitis would be expected to spread and, yes, that would usually prove fatal. It doesn't happen 100% of the time (obviously, or I wouldn't be here to relate the story), but that IS what they doctors would expect to happen.

The same is true for almost any miraculous claim. If you say "Well, that's a great story but it wasn't necessarily a miracle" then you are explicitly implying you feel there is an alternative explanation. Therefore, the burden lies with the skeptic to provide that alternative explanation and try to explain the event (to the best of their ability) in a more logical fashion. If you say "I don't think that was a miracle, but I don't have to provide an alternative explanation because I don't have enough data", all you're saying is "I don't believe your account because I don't believe in a Higher Being that performs miracles". That's no different than believers saying "I don't believe in ToE because I have faith that Creation is correct". If you question the claim of another, you bear the burden of explaining HOW the event could have occurred naturally. Even if it isn't 100% accurate, there is a burden to provide a plausible explanation.

There was a TV show a few years back that took this approach. Each series began with an event the person experiencing it felt was "miraculous" because there didn't seem to be any other explanation for it. The show's characters would investigate the incident and provide a "logical" answer or sequence of events by the end of the program. It was a drama show and all the events were fiction, but the point was that most "miracles" actually have a more mundane explanation. I didn't really agree with the concept of the show, because it's purpose seem to be convincing (or reinforcing) the audience to believe miracles (and by proxy, God) don't exist.

Originally Posted by Stratos Technincally, I wouldn't need to. God, being omniscient, would know what would be required for me to believe. A biologist, lacking omniscient, would not really know what would be required for a Creationist to accept ToE. Even if I can't provide a defininte answer here, my above point still stands.

You're avoiding the question. I'm not asking you to tell God what evidence you need, I'm asking you to tell me - and I definitely am not omniscient. In the process, I'm also asking you to examine your own beliefs and honostly ask yourself "What would I need to see to change my belief that God does not exist?"

Giving a pat answer of "any one of the OT miracles" or "God should know what I need" is just a way of avoiding self-examination and placing the blame on God for you lack of belief. You're saying "God should know what I need to believe so, if He does exist, it's HIS fault I don't believe". God did not perform the OT miracles just to "show off" or prove He existed. There was a functional need for the miracles He performed.

All I'm asking is for you to examine your beliefs objectively (which is no different than what non-believers ask believers to do) and determine for yourself "What evidence would I need to see to convince me (or at least make me reconsider) that my current beliefs may be wrong?"

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Beaumanoir Or they may just not attract a mate as they are not the perfect candidate.

I'm having trouble attracting a mate. I never thought it might be because my hands are too small.

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Cerek I'm having trouble attracting a mate. I never thought it might be because my hands are too small.

Start thinking like an Ape then?

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Cerek That's not true. I've given my example and the relevant data needed to evaluate it. I've listed the chronic illness I was diagnosed with. I've explained what that illness did to my body and described the results of that incident. All of this can be researched through the internet or asking those with medical knowledge. To break it down to it's barest form, I've been diagnosed with a chronic illness called Chron's Disease. That disease attacked and killed my colon (large intestine), causing it to rupture. My body pumped waste material into my abdominal cavity for 30 hours before I finally got into an operating room. By that time, perotinitis (poison) had saturated my abdominal area. Given the period of time the perotinitis went untreated, the next logical step was for it to enter my bloodstream which would have been fatal. While most doctors will hedge their answers by saying they would need to know the patient's medical history more thoroughly, if you ask them to evaluate the situation based on the information recieved, they will agree that the perotinitis would be expected to spread and, yes, that would usually prove fatal. It doesn't happen 100% of the time (obviously, or I wouldn't be here to relate the story), but that IS what they doctors would expect to happen. The same is true for almost any miraculous claim. If you say "Well, that's a great story but it wasn't necessarily a miracle" then you are explicitly implying you feel there is an alternative explanation. Therefore, the burden lies with the skeptic to provide that alternative explanation and try to explain the event (to the best of their ability) in a more logical fashion. If you say "I don't think that was a miracle, but I don't have to provide an alternative explanation because I don't have enough data", all you're saying is "I don't believe your account because I don't believe in a Higher Being that performs miracles". That's no different than believers saying "I don't believe in ToE because I have faith that Creation is correct". If you question the claim of another, you bear the burden of explaining HOW the event could have occurred naturally. Even if it isn't 100% accurate, there is a burden to provide a plausible explanation.

Doctors are infallible humans. They base their conclusions on experience and statistics, and they are relatively often correct. People have survived in freezing cold water longer than what most physicians would expect. However, it doesn't follow that it must be a miracle, unless you define as an unlikely event. It's a matter of "unlikely event" on the one hand, and "divine intervention" on the other.

If we followed your logic, it would be unreasonalbe to deny any claim if the claimant shouted "miracle!" unless an alternative explanation is given.
Further, a natural explanation would require some form of model, data, and all that to connect the event with a non-miracle explanation. Basically an alternative theory. The proponent in the miracle explanation only need to say "Miracle" and that's it. He doesn't need to provide an explanation mechanism since miracles can't really be explained anyway.

You're avoiding the question. I'm not asking you to tell God what evidence you need, I'm asking you to tell me - and I definitely am not omniscient. In the process, I'm also asking you to examine your own beliefs and honostly ask yourself "What would I need to see to change my belief that God does not exist?" Giving a pat answer of "any one of the OT miracles" or "God should know what I need" is just a way of avoiding self-examination and placing the blame on God for you lack of belief. You're saying "God should know what I need to believe so, if He does exist, it's HIS fault I don't believe". God did not perform the OT miracles just to "show off" or prove He existed. There was a functional need for the miracles He performed. All I'm asking is for you to examine your beliefs objectively (which is no different than what non-believers ask believers to do) and determine for yourself "What evidence would I need to see to convince me (or at least make me reconsider) that my current beliefs may be wrong?"

I think you're putting alot of words in my mouth.

Anyway, I've been as exact as I can be. I don't know exactly what would be required for me to believe before the event, but it's a moot question as whatever it is God could provide it. I'm not saying he should, only that he could. This is different from the evolutionary biologist who lacks Gods vast knowledge and don't know the mind of a Creationist.

I also dislike the idea of putting the blame on the non-believers for their lack of belief. You're adding a level of culpability that I don't accept.

"God is perfect so the blame is somewhere else."

*Points to the non-believer*

"You, it's your fault you don't believe"

Look, we're not getting any further here so let's just drop it. For friendships sake.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Stratos Doctors are infallible humans. They base their conclusions on experience and statistics, and they are relatively often correct. People have survived in freezing cold water longer than what most physicians would expect. However, it doesn't follow that it must be a miracle, unless you define as an unlikely event. It's a matter of "unlikely event" on the one hand, and "divine intervention" on the other.

Surviving in freezing water longer than expected could be explained based on different factors. The physical stamina and endurance of the individual could play a part, as well as the clothing they happen to have on. This may not completely explain the person's survival, but it could provide at least parts of an alternative explanation.

I've read other accounts that would be considered miraculous as well. One was of a man who worked construction and - in a freak accident - actually shot a nail into his heart with a nail gun. The physician that treated him stated the mans extraordinary physical condition played a partial role in his survival, but that still wasn't enough to explain he surviving such a traumatic wound. His final conclusion was "this is one lucky individual".

I also read a story when I was in elementary school of a stewardess who survived falling from the sky when her plane blew up. While her survival might be considered miraculous by some, there were several factors that attributed it as well. She was towards the back of the plane away from the location of the explosion. She was knocked unconscious as the tail section fell from the sky (which prevented her from suffering panic, a heart attack or broken bones from "tensing up"). The tail section landed in a thick forest on a snow covered hillside. So the size and shape of the tail section affected her rate of descent and provided some protection to her. The trees and snow also helped "cushion" her landing. Her survival would still be unexpected in most cases, but you can see how other factors played into it. THAT is they type of alternative explanation I am talking about. The skeptic only bears the burden of providing a plausible explanation or listing reasonable mitigating factors that could also be considered.

Originally Posted by Stratos Anyway, I've been as exact as I can be. I don't know exactly what would be required for me to believe before the event, but it's a moot question as whatever it is God could provide it. I'm not saying he should, only that he could. This is different from the evolutionary biologist who lacks Gods vast knowledge and don't know the mind of a Creationist.

Saying "I don't know exactly" is an acceptable answer. You've evaluated your beliefs and you really don't know what it would take to convince you they may be wrong. It's no different for a believer. I'm not sure exactly what evidence I could see that would be irrefutable and convince me to change my mind. I will say that several arguments I've seen over the years have forced me to RE-evaluate my beliefs and look much deeper into WHY I believe them than I have before. I've still not found an argument that is completely convincing, but I've seen some that made me rethink what I thought before.

Originally Posted by Stratos I also dislike the idea of putting the blame on the non-believers for their lack of belief. You're adding a level of culpability that I don't accept.

But that is the same culpability you are placing on God. You are saying there should be no chance for doubt if God is perfect, but we are told we have a choice to believe what God tells and shows us or not to believe it.

There are some people who still believe the Earth is flat. When shown pictures from satellites disproving their belief, they say "I can see how an untrained eye would be fooled by that." Now,this example is normally given as an analogy for believers refusing to accept scientific evidence that contradicts a belief in God. But we've seen non-believers display that same refusal to consider evidence contrary to their belief system.

So the culpability lies somewhere in the middle, rather than wholly on one party.

[Memnoch]

Hmm. First epic thread in a long while. Apologies but I haven't had the chance to read through it, but 25 pages!

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Beaumanoir Apes are bipeds, they have two feet - ergo, they are bipeds. .

Absolutely incorrect bro. Sorry. Some apes have LIMITED bipedalism, but bidepalism is one major difference between apes, who walk using their arms on the ground most of the time, and humans, who have shorter arms.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm

The comparatively minor anatomical differences between humans and apes are largely a result of our habitual bipedalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedal

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../319/5870/1662

Orrorin tugenensis Femoral Morphology and the Evolution of Hominin Bipedalism Brian G. Richmond1,2* and William L. Jungers3 Bipedalism is a key human adaptation and a defining feature of the hominin clade. Fossil femora discovered in Kenya and attributed to Orrorin tugenensis, at 6 million years ago, purportedly provide the earliest postcranial evidence of hominin bipedalism, but their functional and phylogenetic affinities are controversial. We show that the O. tugenensis femur differs from those of apes and Homo and most strongly resembles those of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, indicating that O. tugenensis was bipedal but is not more closely related to Homo than to Australopithecus. Femoral morphology indicates that O. tugenensis shared distinctive hip biomechanics with australopiths, suggesting that this complex evolved early in human evolution and persisted for almost 4 million years until modifications of the hip appeared in the late Pliocene in early Homo.

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Yorick Absolutely incorrect bro. Sorry. Some apes have LIMITED bipedalism, but bidepalism is one major difference between apes, who walk using their arms on the ground most of the time, and humans, who have shorter arms. http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedal http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../319/5870/1662

I'm sticking to it, actually. A biped is something with two feet. That's just etymology. Whether or not they're capable of bipedal locomotion is another matter. And like I said before, just because they choose to walk on all fours 'most of the time', as you put it, doesn't mean they can't. I said, this is called Facultative Bipedalism.

But anyway, we're actually just arguing semantics here, and it's a bit irrelevant to the main discussion My points from the last post still stand, whether we call them Bipeds, Quadrupeds or Jeremy.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Here are 2 example that are first-hand information.

One of our church members took a bad fall and broke her tail-bone some years back. She was not attending our church at this time BTW. Despite physio and multiple surgeries things only got worse. It got to a point where she was bed-ridden at home and needed help for the simplest of things. After several years of this, a friend ask if she had the elders from the church come to pray over her. She had not, but was certainly open to it. Several days after, the elders gathered 'round her and prayed for healing.
She felt a warmth pass through her from head to foot. After a few minutes she tried to stand up and walk. She felt absolutely fine. That's a pretty tough one to chalk up to coincidence.

The other situation happened to our former pastor on a mission trip last year. They rented a Jeep which had an electric drivers side window that stopped working. It didn't really matter 'cos it's always so hot there anyway. On the 4th day of their trip they were in an area of excessive violence, crime, theft etc. They did not want to leave the vehicle unattended with the window being all the way down.
One of the people said "let's pray over the window; that The Lord will fix it"! Even the pastor raised an eyebrow at this, but decided to do it anyway. No sooner did they finish praying, that they tried the window. They pushed the button and it went right up with no problem and continued to work from that point on.

Take for what you will, of course, but these are things I've heard first hand, from the people who have experienced it.

I could tell you more, but, would it make a difference?

[Firestormalpha]

se·man·tics /sɪˈmæntɪks/ Pronunciation Key - –noun (used with a singular verb) 1. Linguistics. a. the study of meaning. b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form. 2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote. 3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

the study of meaning, or linguistics, the meaning of words?

I'd say that's really quite relevant, if you can't agree with on the meanings of words, no worthwhile discussion can occur.