"I think it gives some support to caution."
The fact that the data is so sparse gives rise to caution, IMHO. What I
argue, though, is that what data there is supports the case I am arguing.
bivalve goes on:
"The importance of the historicity of the resurrection would argue
against
creation with apparent history within the past couple millenia. The
difficulties of God being misleading in creating an appearance of history
would argue against creation with apparent history for much longer ago
than
that. However, I don't see contrary evidence in the case of the zygote,
just lack of evidence."
I am baffled by this statement. I did not see "apparent history" as part
of the argument/logic stream.
bivalve concludes:
" To me, the arguement of possible fusion or fission sounds similar
to "we can't tell if it's killing two people or just one person, so it's
OK." If all goes well, a zygote will lead to at least one adult
(possibly
in concert with one or two other zygotes)..."
No, the argument is not that. The first argument is that it is
unreasonable to posit a single entity with two souls, therefore the
entity (which later is to split into two entities) must have no soul.
The second argument is that it is unreasonable to posit two entities,
each with a soul, fusing into a single entity. Therefore the entities
(which are later to fuse) must be soulless.
But if the entities which are later to either split or fuse are soulless,
then what would lead us to conclude that other entities, which are not to
either split or fuse, have souls? We can ASSUME such a thing, but I know
no data which would support that assumption, for it presumes that God
implants a soul into some entities at one time and waits for
splitting/fusion to handle others.
Burgy
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]