Re: Where did whales come from?

Glenn R. Morton (
Sat, 20 Jun 1998 16:48:53 -0500

At 09:20 PM 6/20/98 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
>Please substantiate your assertion that "the first rule of logic is
>that the facts must be correct". My understanding is that logic
>has little or nothing to do with "facts":
>"Logic (Greek logos, "word," "speech," "reason"), science
>dealing with the principles of valid reasoning and argument.
>The study of logic is the effort to determine the conditions
>under which one is justified in passing from given statements,
>called premises, to a conclusion that is claimed to follow from
>them. Logical validity is a relationship between the premises
>and the conclusion such that if the premises are true then the
>conclusion is true..." (Henry R. West, "Logic," Microsoft (R)
>Encarta. Copyright (c) 1993 Microsoft Corporation.
>Copyright (c) 1993 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation)

Stephen, you own citation proves what I was trying to say. IF the premises
are true, then the conclusion is true. But if they are false, then the
conclusion is false. If an argument is to be true, the premises must be true.

And then below you go on to argue my position.

>GM>If they aren't, then the argument is false. If Johnson is
>>so expert in analyzing argumentation, he should know this.
>Clearly if "the facts" are not "correct" then "the argument is
>false." You didn't have to go into such a preamble about
>"logic" to establish that!
>And of course Johnson knows this. He wouldn't even have to
>be "expert in analyzing argumentation" to know this.
>>>GM>Stanley is not saying that whales came from rodents
>>>>in spite of how you read this. He is saying that the
>>>>ORDERS of mammals came from .
>>SJ>This is just hair-splitting. If all orders of mammals came
>>>from animals resembling rodents, and whales are mammals,
>>>then whales came from animals resembling rodents!
>No answer.

Not worth one.

>It is only *you* and your atheist friends who desperately need
>to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find fault with on of the
>greatest Christian apologists this Century has produced, in
>order to protect your sacred cow, evolution.

Yes, I do have atheist friends. We are supposed to love those who disagree
with us.

>It is "hairsplitting". First, you are using the word "rodent" in a
>highly technical sense. Johnson is using it in a popular sense
>as shorthand for "small, rodent-like mammal".

If Johnson is going to engage scientists, then he needs to use scientific,
technical definitions. One can't claim to be critiquing scientific
arguments if one is using sloppy layman's language in the field.

>Second, even if Johnson *was* using the word "rodent" in a
>technical sense, there is nothing wrong with what he said.
>There is nothing in Darwinism that would preclude a real
>"rodent" from turning into a bat or a whale.

The nested hierarchies of similarities is what prevents exactly that. It
is clearly what Stanley was getting at in the quotation Johnson used.
Stanely said a rodent COULDN"T give rise to a whale.

>don't you criticise your atheist pals like Dawkins for *their*

Are you suggesting that Christians shouldn't be friends with atheists?

>GM>yes I did. I got it from a very good friend of his whom I
>>asked to discuss this issue with Johnson. Why did I do that?
>>Because Johnson wouldn't discuss it with me.
>> Our mutual friend does beleive that Johnson should
>>change it but he won't go talk to johnson about the second
>>example I found.
>You and I were on this Reflector when Johnson was on it too,
>after DoT had come out. Why didn't you discuss it with him
>then, if it was such a burning issue?

I hadn't noticed it then, but I did try to discuss it with him on another
list we were on and I got no reply.

>GM>It is not about appeasing anyone, Stephen, it is about
>>being rigourously correct because we are working for the
>If you think "working for the Lord" means destructively
>critcising the Lord's servants that he sends (Eph 4:11), then
>you and I have a different definition of what "working for the
>Lord" means.

Lets end with this. You seem to believe that working for the Lord never
means criticising others or urging them to do or say the correct thing.
consider 2Chron 18:

5 Therefore the king of Israel gathered together of prophets four hundred
men, and said unto them, Shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I
forbear? And they said, Go up; for God will deliver it into the king's hand.
6 But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides,
that we might inquire of him?
7 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, by
whom we may inquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he never prophesied
good unto me, but always evil: the same is Micaiah the son of Imla. And
Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.
8 And the king of Israel called for one of his officers, and said, Fetch
quickly Micaiah the son of Imla.
9 And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah sat either of them
on his throne, clothed in their robes, and they sat in a void place at the
entering in of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before
10 And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah had made him horns of iron, and said,
Thus saith the LORD, With these thou shalt push Syria until they be consumed.
11 And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and
prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
12 And the messenger that went to call Micaiah spake to him, saying,
Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one assent;
let thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of theirs, and speak thou
13 And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will
I speak.
14 And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him, Micaiah,
shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And he said, Go
ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand.
15 And the king said to him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou
say nothing but the truth to me in the name of the LORD?
16 Then he said, I did see all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as
sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master; let
them return therefore every man to his house in peace.
17 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he
would not prophesy good unto me, but evil?
18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD
sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right
hand and on his left.
19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go
up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and
another saying after that manner.
20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I
will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all
his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also
prevail: go out, and do even so.
22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of
these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.
23 Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon
the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak
unto thee?

Was Micaiah engaging in destructive criticism? Would you write invectives
against Micaiah or slap him in the face? I am wanting to know how far
criticism of others is to be suppressed in your opinion.

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information