Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8966 total)
80 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (8 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,411 Year: 5,159/23,288 Month: 280/1,784 Week: 167/211 Day: 15/60 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Embarrassed Creationist
custard
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 69 (188345)
02-25-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Lammy
02-25-2005 2:50 AM


Hector reborn writes:

I think evolution would have received more praises if it has a footnote that says "Mutation, which is the backbone of the theory, is caused by the Almighty Christian God and no other."

Doesn't the Fine Tuning argument do just that? I'm surprised I haven't seen this argument presented more frequently. It certainly would seem to be harder to refute than the typical creation argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 2:50 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 3:41 AM custard has responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 69 (188356)
02-25-2005 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Lammy
02-25-2005 3:41 AM


Just how many typical creos do you know that actually know what "mutation" is?

Touche. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 3:41 AM Lammy has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 69 (188366)
02-25-2005 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Lammy
02-25-2005 3:55 AM


Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything, and I think atheists often have trouble understanding why fundies have "faith".

Nice observation. I know that blind faith is certainly my stumbling block, but I think there are better, certainly less falsifiable, arguments for creationists that they could be using: fine tuning for one.

The ID argument is slightly more palatable if it was argued from the 'God the Clockmaker' angle, and human evolution was the inevitable result of initial design and the creation of the right conditions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 3:55 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 4:46 AM custard has responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 69 (188375)
02-25-2005 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Lammy
02-25-2005 4:46 AM


god the watchmaker

What if tomorrow we find out that abiogenesis is a natural process? Do we keep pushing back the line? If so, why even bother?

I don't see how that invalidates the argument that god is still the source for design of existence as we know it; especially if conditions sympathetic to (wrong word, but tired sorry) abiogenesis and life as we know it are inherent in the design.

The problem I see over and over again is that most creationists set the bar to far forward because they get caught up in literalism. Why set a bar at all.

Who knows, maybe abiogenesis not only occurs, but it occurs much more frequently than we think BECAUSE that is the fundamental nature of reality as created by god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 4:46 AM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020