Design evidence # 2piR : circular logic

If man is to best understand and dominate the world God created for him, it follows that only the greatest reasoning and logic will empower him to do so.Throughout history, Man has ended up devoting much of his time using that God given logic to try and understand the circle. In the end all who have contemplated it's design have come to appreciate the circle as a symbol of perfection.This is due to the circle's mysterious bond to an unending number known only as "pi". This unbreakable connection seems to prove the circle's connection to divinity, for man will never fully comprehend pi but some greater force MUST understand it for the circle to exist at all.The circle's connection to God and perfection is also exhibited through its modelling of the universe we see (his creation). All heavenly objects are round and so made up of many circles. Space is curved. The "circle of life": life to death to life to death unending.Given the importance of attaining the greatest level of logic and reason, and given the highest perfection (the divine qualities) of the circle, is not the best or most divine logic and reasoning circular in nature?And since man has been given this most ultimate tool of reasoning (circular logic), which can only have come from God since only God may truly understand circles, does this not prove that God not only exists but that he is most good and merciful?What's more, certainly no other creature on the face of the planet... no mere animal... can use circular logic. Does this not show God's greatest love is for man and how important he is above all others? Does this not show how man alone is made in His image as only he can use the greatest logic used by God?I think the answers to these questions lay in the questions themselves.amen brotherholmes"[ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching]... look guys, I'm handing out wings."
--- Bartender from It's a Wonderful Life and an inspiration to ID evidence creators everywhere---[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-05-2003][This message has been edited by holmes, 02-05-2003]

Sonnikke, everyone else has done a good a job of rightly taking your examples apart (and that last one I have no idea what you are talking about) so I am going to do something really bizarre and agree with one of your points!Oh people are probably going to jump on me for this, but I'd welcome a true rebuttal of Sonnikke's position on homology.Unlike all of the other examples--- which have not one bit of circular reasoning in them--- homology has been used by some scientists in a very circular way.While a person can use homology to build a theory of evolutionary development (creating a model to explain what is seen), one cannot then say "look at the similarity of these things, that proves evolution is true."I wish scientists, especially those writing ToE stuff, would watch their philosophy.That said, not all scientists use this logic (even niles eldredge pointed this problem out in his latest book), and just because some do does not reduce the ToE itself.ToE is the best model so far for explaining the "likenesses" we find, and the changes in these likenesses through time.I have yet to hear a Creationist or ID model which gives an adequate explanation of anything we have found, especially with regards to the changes of likenesses through time (this may be why Behe admits ToE... it IS the best current model).Sonnikke, now that I have admitted there is some bad circular reasoning made by some ToE scientists, and you did not deny my point that Creationists use circular logic (merely stating "nyah nyah, you gus do it too"), can we both agree that circular logic is BAD, and so you not use it anymore?I'll be posting replies to your "evidence" posts, and I'd love for you to respond without the circularity.holmes