Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

It's all in the tone, Percy. If the intent seems friendly, that's one thing. But this was not friendly on the part of some. Your tone, however, was not condescending at all. But that's just my view from outside from someone who didn't participate in the argument with Faith directly.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-09-2006 10:59 AM

This would be a good topic if somebody wants to start it. I start too many as it is.

I can't discuss this. I don't know anything about it. But somebody mentioned some kind of messed-up gene having to do with some vitamin that appears in both apes and man. That's evidence for the evo side, I suppose.

That's not the same idea at all.

There's no reason for those fossils to be lying about.There is a reason for genotypes and phenotypes however: being fruitful and multiplying.There are two possible explanations: evolution or special creation.Both are radical and strange.

Why?

DNA has an obvious function; fossils do not. There's no reason for them that can be linked to human life and so they are better evidence in that sense, and also more direct evidence.Without the fossils, we have mostly an argument from incredulity.abe: Evolution must be true because special creation is incredible.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-09-2006 11:56 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-09-2006 11:58 AM

Yes, there is: fossils. A--for fairmindedness.

I'm not sympathetic to the creationist side. I'm trying to make a point about the nature of evidence.

"Why" is not irrelevant.

That is not a reasonable action to attribute to the traditional idea of the Almighty.However, creating a method of gene flow by which we could all be similar yet different is very understandable.

It's not a question of whether God could do something. Obviously He could do anything that's not contradictory (round squares). The question is, would some action be a reasonable act to attribute to God?

If you want to define the traditional concept of God that way, then the God I don't believe in is different from the God you don't believe in, and I think a little religious tolerance is in order here.

Why did I fall into a trap? That's a trick question. I deny falling into any trap.

I don't know about that. But it seems to me obvious that if you make a list, you can easily see how one of these is much less reasonable than the others:1. God created a reproductive process which makes us similar yet different. This we call imperfect replication.
2. God created fossils.
3. God created a nested heirarchy of life forms.Therefore, fossils is the best evidence.