Why are you still confused/feigning confusion? How does your being an incurable amnesiac prove all of modern science wrong?
Remember me posting these?
Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium.And why am I bothering? Next thread you'll be back with your parallel line charts and pretending to know nothing nothing nothing. God should not be telling people to lie.
All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost).It seems to have happened a lot. For example, we have been learning recently that the ocean has risen and fallen a great many times. Each time it happened, it would fragment any wide-ranging species into a bunch of little geographic areas. Later, when the ocean level changed back, the fragments would try to spread back into the main area. This would leave "punctuated equilibrium" in the fossil record. Is This Common? Why?
Punctuated equilibrium is a valid scientific hypothesis, and when geological strata are complete with good temporal resolution and the fossil record is well-represented, the hypothesis is testable. PE, as construed by Eldredge and Gould, is founded upon the modern allopatric speciation model which lies well within mainstream population genetics. However, PE is not novel, and in large part PE originated with Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (Darwin credits British paleontologist Hugh Falconer with first proposing that stasis is more predominant in the fossil record than periods of morphological change). Thus, in any meaningful sense of the word, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is resolutely "Darwinian."
I, for one, always find it amusing to see what a petty, jealous, and ultimately insignificant god these people claim to worship. But then, they also claim to see a god in their own image, so perhaps it fits.
Your materialistic science may allow for you to be wrong and forgiven but actual logic does not allow for this…
You claim:
· A universal beginning without a cause or reason
· The beginning of life without cause or reason
· Punk-Eek as an explanation for 50 new body plans in an extremely brief period of time
· Gradualism as an explanation for everything else
· And consciousness emerging from this mindlessness
Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle
A.K.A.
C.R.A.P.
“Although many people are content with the worldview of Naturalism, many others have concluded that it is self-contradictory and inconsistent, it does not fit many facts of science and human experience, and it is not lived out by those who hold it. In several ways it fails the truth tests we've outlined.“The first proposition we've listed for naturalism states that "Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity,..." and if this is true, then the totality of man is only matter. If there is some degree of consciousness and thought in the brain of man, than thinking is still only a result of matter's properties. Why would these "thoughts" produced by matter (the chemical brain of man) correspond to the truth of reality? Matter has no known interest in truth. Why should chemicals be able to distinguish illusion from reality, since there is no rational and purposive cause for the existence of man or his mind,? ...Of course, naturalists may appeal to scientific inquiry and the laws of logical thought. But this begs the question, because it is the chemical brain which is "thinking" and using the scientific method and the laws of thought ...all of which might still be an illusion, and not reality. C.S.Lewis quotes Prof. Haldane as saying, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" ("Miracles", p.18). This may be like the motion of atoms to create "thoughts" in a computer ...what is to determine whether those computer "thoughts" are true or not? If naturalism is right, and matter is all there is, then even our "thoughts" about thinking and the brain and everything else may be nothing but illusion.
“Epistemology is the study of the basis and validity of knowledge, ----and it is because of its inability to know anything for sure, that the worldview of naturalism is self-contradictory, and fails the first truth test. Naturalism logically creates an epistemological vacuum, in which man can never know anything for sure. Informed and consistent naturalism results in epistemological nihilism.
“The philosophical naturalist (who is consistent) cannot know anything for sure, and yet the first proposition of naturalism makes statements as if they know that "matter is all there is" and that "no supernatural God exists". So, even though the philosophical naturalist does not know that his thinking bears any relationship to reality, still he often audaciously declares that he knows so much that he can categorically rule out the existence of something spiritual. The inconsistency and illogic in such assertions are obvious. “When a man is done philosophizing about the nature of his worldview, can he live it out, and does he actually practice it in his daily life? ...If not, then the actions of his life reveal his true inner conviction of the untruth of that worldview ...it is not livable, therefore, that worldview fails the third truth-test.
Again Vade, Deal with it!
| Posted by VadeRetro to Heartlander On Religion 04/29/2002 5:54:33 PM PDT #2,154 of 2,891 Was there intelligent design behind your brain? I don't think so. Post Reply Well the Dr. is back in Vade…
|