|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
By the way, when there's something I don't understand, I really appreciate it when someone is willing to take baby steps with me. Silas did it for me on a couple occasions, and more recently cavediver. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
This would be a good topic if somebody wants to start it. I start too many as it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why have patterns of relatedness visible at effectively functionless bases, i.e. the third codon base for most amino acids? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
He could have put the fossils there too, that nullifies that argument. That's not the same idea at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It's exactly the same idea. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
God put them there. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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 AM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-09-2006 11:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
In other words, I don't believe that there is anthing we could find where we could reasonably conclude, "God would never have done this, it must have happened without his guidance." Yes, there is: fossils.
This post is an attempt to apply the lessons learned in this thread, so give me a grade. No need to be kind, I don't need grade inflation, I'm trying to learn. A--for fairmindedness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It seems to me that arguments which are more symphathetic to the creationist side I'm not sympathetic to the creationist side. I'm trying to make a point about the nature of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Utterly, utterly irrelevant. "Why" is not irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why wouldn't God have made fake fossils? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
God is already defined as a being whose actions may appear as unreasonable to us. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I think that you fall into the same trap as creationists do. I suppose what I want to know is why. Why did I fall into a trap? That's a trick question. I deny falling into any trap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But the premise was that "The Lord works in mysterious ways." 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024