Ah, my mistake. I read something wrong. He didn't say such a thing where I thought he had.
However it still remains that it's completely clear that he either hasn't, or has and just ignores most of it when it suits him.
I read his posting history, and he never did state if he did so. As far as I know, he read
some of the Bible, otherwise he wouldn't be aware about God murdering people and also punishing those who disobey him. So, I went ahead and asked the question (why the heck not?).
From what I've been reading, he tends to make his own "magic decoder ring" hermeneutics when it comes to the Bible. I.E. The debate about Job, although he is straying off, going off-topic, and even goes on to talk about "evolutionists." Now, if that didn't make it more obvious that he was a Creationist, I don't know what to say other than I'm at a loss of words in the following paragraph:
In my first post I brought in cases of regeneration in other animals to show that regeneration does not violate the laws of nature. Apparently I need to spell out the ramification of that fact more clearly. From an evolutionist view, we know that the ability to regenerate has evolved at least once. If regeneration occurs in a human, there’s nothing that would stop you from speculating that it was happening again. Some evolutionists might even trumpet it as proof that we’re evolving. There wouldn’t be conclusive evidence of this at first, but as I’ve shown above, we don’t have conclusive evidence of the mechanisms for spontaneous remission of cancer or rabies cures, so firm understanding is not necessary for a phenomenon to be included in the ambiguous category.
In order to succeed on that line, you would need to prove that it would be impossible for humans to ever develop regeneration ability.
So we see again that, if an amputee is healed, the healing of amputees would merely be moved from the unambiguous category to the ambiguous category.
No scientists have proven that it is impossible for humans to regenerate limbs. They have been finding ways instead to try to see if humans could achieve it, and it is possible, for example, by removing
one gene. Of course, some people would argue in the future if scientists were to use genetics in order to make this possible that it is "playing God" when in fact, it is simply testing and experimentation. Ethical issues other than "playing God" would arise, but I am going on a tangent.
Salamanders have been studied to see what happens if they lose a limb, them being the only vertebrate to be able to produce new limbs. Instead of building a scar, the salamanders "
reactivate an embryonic development program to build a new limb."
[Source for the bolded statement above:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=regrowing-human-limbs]
Now, with this knowledge, I don't know why Voter even brings up a Creationist-made term like "evolutionists" into the conversation. No one said it was
absolutely impossible for humans to one day be able to regenerate limbs. However, the fact of the matter is, unless humans develop the same feature that salamanders have/get rid of one gene/evolve the ability to regenerate limbs in the next millions of years to come, then there is
no way that amputees can ever regenerate limbs, other than through a miracle.
The bottom of the matter is, did said miracle happen? No. Is it recorded in history, other than in an old, superstitious, religious book? No. Does this thus make it disambiguous? Yes. And to argue that it is ambiguous would require the human body to
actually be able to regenerate limbs in another way other than through a miracle. Humans, through billions of years of evolution and "the way nature intended" based on their environment and further breeding, are
NOT naturally able to regenerate limbs. That is a fact.
The only thing that humans can
DO is to
try to find ways to regenerate limbs, instead of relying on any god to regenerate a human being's limbs, since this god hasn't shown himself to be present at all, thus triggering the philosophical question: Why won't God heal amputees? It can apply to any deity, but the top two are two of the three Abrahamic Faiths, which is why it is "God" rather than a long list of other deities, which include Hinduism's huge pantheon. The only rational conclusion for the question "WWGHA?" is that no deities exist, and dwelling on a god being separate from this world or "not caring enough" to interfere with humans would be a fallacy, since stories say otherwise (whether it comes from the Bible, the Vedas, or the Koran). Going back to the heart of
this matter of whether the question "WWGHA?" is ambiguous or not:
Is regeneration of limbs thus ambiguous, after knowing for a fact that humans
don't naturally regenerate limbs? Not at all.
