Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: VadeRetro
Darwin predicted gradualism! What is Punk-Eek? It’s not gradualism…
Hey, guess what… the charts I posted show this…

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

Now you have refused to name this scientific principle/creator of all - so, lets go with this one:
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…
Take your medication and join your club…

Rx

Get A CLUe!

-Dr. Heartlander



295 posted on 01/10/2004 8:10:00 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies ]


To: Heartlander
Darwin predicted gradualism!

Wrong. Already refuted on this thread. You're now reduced to coming back dumb as a stump on the same thread. Your amnesia has reached gore3000 proportions. But, to prevent going totally in circles, let me borrow from this nice compilation Ichneumon has made:

He didn't invent it [punctuated equilibrium], Darwin did, and it's no fairy tale:
I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)

"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)

"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]

[All quotes from Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"]

This is classic Punctuated Equilibrium -- from Charles Darwin in 1859.


296 posted on 01/11/2004 8:35:14 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander
By the way, unless your name is R. Totten, you have without attribution mangled and retitled (C.R.A.P.) someone else's article. This appears to be absolutely standard creation scholarship. Once again apparently the righteousness of your cause excuses anything.
297 posted on 01/11/2004 10:01:46 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson