Posted on 11/13/2009 8:11:34 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Evolutionary philosophy is a bottom-up storytelling project: particles, planets, people. Naturalists (those who say nature is all there is) believe they can invent explanations that are free of miracles, but in practice, miracles pop up everywhere in their stories. This was satirized by Sidney Harris years ago in a cartoon that showed a grad student filling a blackboard with equations. His adviser called attention to one step that needed some elaboration: It said, "Then a miracle happens." Examples of miracles in evolutionary philosophy include the sudden appearance of the universe without cause or explanation, the origin of life, the origin of sex, the origin of animal and plant body plans, and the origin of human consciousness.
An egregious example of appeal to miracle appeared recently in Nature ...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ouch! Put some ice on that. Your credibility just took another major slap on the nose. Darwin did not address creation, his work was limited to the variation and the origin and specialization of the variation in life after creation, which he attributed to the Creator.
You included a quote in your post # 11. That quote is 'your quote'.
"In addition, I'd like to see a logical layout of what you call fallacy in the above."
You already did that w/ Fred and I agreed with you.
Darwin’s theory has nothing to do with the origin of life because his “theory” can’t explain it. Nor does it provide a shred of evidence for the macro-evolution of the already living. All in all, darwin’s unscientific creation myth has been a complete failure, and is rapidly becoming a laughingstock and an embarrassment, even among evos.
Thank you for your support.
I rest my case.
And here we go again, the psychiatric ward again at work...
More seriously, I am impressed. One day they discuss biology with biologists. Then physics with physicists (e.g. radioactive decay). Today they show how stupid astronomers are. You know what, guys? Take it a step further. The science as we know it has proven itself by producing technology. Produce your own, better technology, on the foundation of your better science, and make our jaws drop.
Or better yet. They should ditch their materialist computers and pray their anti-science screeds on to FR.
No, thank you.
"I rest my case."
It is agreed that evolution is based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
The vast majority of Christians are smart enough to recognize the six days in Genesis is allegory, and not to mix their faith with scientific inquiry. So speak for yourself, you embarrass the rest of us.
snip: The so-called “Theory of Evolution” is not a theory...
Spirited: Whether called a theory, or more correctly an anti-creation mythos, it is not empirical but metaphysical.
Presuppositions, assumptions, theories, logic, reason, memory are absolutely necessary to the pursuit of science, yet all are metaphysical and not of the sensory or material realm. And as evolutionary naturalism rules out the immaterial (metaphysical) realm, it cancels itself out as well.
Personally, I do not understand their suicidal zeal. It's suicidal, because they have to turn virtually every scientific discipline upside down to give it a superficial semblance of reconciliation with their interpretation of the Bible. If isotope ratios are inconvenient, then to hell with the decay rate. If the chronology derived from geological layers are inconvenient, then to hell with stratigraphy. To hell with physics. To hell with computer science and mathematics. And, of course, to hell with biology.
Actually, all this quackery is completely unnecessary. If one wants to believe in God creating the Earth 6,000 years ago in 6 days, then there is a very simple way of reconciling it with material evidence: it was completely within God's capabilities to create not only the Earth and the living things, but also, for reasons known to God, the fossils and the right isotopic ratios to suggest a longer history. Feel free to believe, and all this juggling, cherry picking, false 'gotchas', spinning and twisting the reality (called 'creation science') becomes completely unnecessary.
Again? Ouch, than't gonna leave a mark on your credibility.
You need to get around more and meet a few more people.
What about the rest of the Scripture? Is it also non-allegorical? This is quite a fundamental question, because if the answer is "no", then please explain the cherry-picking of the fragments that should be read literally. If "yes", then please explain the passages implying the flatness of the Earth, and the Earth being the unmovable center of the Universe.
This is a good explanation:
Myth 7: Creationists Have a Narrow/Literal View of the Bible
This is only partially true. Creationists believe that the Bible was written to be understood. And since we believe that God cannot lie and gave us the Bible to instruct us, we also assume that His Word is clear and accurate. In other words, there’s no reason to think that someone needs to “read into” what the words actually say.
On the other hand, the Bible is not written in one particular style throughout. There are a variety of styles, including historical narratives and poetry. Beyond that, the people God inspired to record His words employed various figures of speech. Jesus Himself was adept at hyperbole and parables, for example.
Thus, creationists approach the Bible in a straightforward fashion. We don’t take idioms or poetic descriptions literally; we see them for what they are. We also do not ignore the intent of the text to align with popular ideas or philosophies.
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling downstrongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to theobedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4-5)
Anyway, even if you choose to treat Genesis literally, I still don't see any necessity to create a whole branch of pseudoscience, called 'creation science' (refer to #50, please).
Absolutely not!
It seems to me that darwinian evolution requires the presence of entities with the following characteristics:
--Reproduction (obvious)
--Inheritence (at least some traits get passed to offspring)
--Variability (at least some heritable traits vary at least some of the time)
--Mutation (the factors causing the state of heritable traits themselves at least sometimes change)
--Superfecundity (more offspring can potentially be produced than can possibly be supported by the environment)
So, at whatever point where you have entities with these characteristics, that's when evolution begins.
o.k.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.