For the mods reading though this mentions evolution I only use it as an example. This has to do with argumentation, not necessarily the topic of Creation. For everyone else please forgive my frequent hyperbole.
A way in which the world & people operate and those with ignorant, misguided or malevolent desires exploit you is by offering you boxed questions. Logical systems that contain only non sequiturs. So for example in regards to the origin of life, intelligent design is disregarded due to preconceived notions that are logically coherent with evolution. If you deny this tyrant that is the dogma of our modern day you are lambasted and seen as logically incoherent. Nobody stops to consider that the initial assumption may have more than one logical conclusion or that the logical conclusion drawn may not be congruent with the initial proposition. This isn’t even to mention that the accuracy of scientific hypotheses with the most support is dependent upon current technology and methodologies. The same way you wouldn’t view a person who lived 10,000 years ago as stupid for thinking that the world was flat because of the nature of his technological lens that he’s able to view the world through. But let’s get back to the example of the origin of life. I would like to ask you the question:
Why is evolution the best way to determine the origin of life?
A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time
B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time
C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time
D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life
E) All of the above
Have you noticed something? Every answer I gave has nothing to do with the origin of life. Not a single one tells you how life began, it only tells you how it has grown or functions. Even with the reasoning of chance/randomness through a large quantity of time that is offered in the option of (B) & (C), it does not explain how life began at all. How life came from non life or even how that non life came into existence. The pillar under all of this is the assumption that evolution can explain the origin of life, when in actual reality all it can tell you is how we descended (& changed) from the first life.
How does stuff like this happen? How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?
A way in which the world & people operate and those with ignorant, misguided or malevolent desires exploit you is by offering you boxed questions. Logical systems that contain only non sequiturs. So for example in regards to the origin of life, intelligent design is disregarded due to preconceived notions that are logically coherent with evolution. If you deny this tyrant that is the dogma of our modern day you are lambasted and seen as logically incoherent. Nobody stops to consider that the initial assumption may have more than one logical conclusion or that the logical conclusion drawn may not be congruent with the initial proposition. This isn’t even to mention that the accuracy of scientific hypotheses with the most support is dependent upon current technology and methodologies. The same way you wouldn’t view a person who lived 10,000 years ago as stupid for thinking that the world was flat because of the nature of his technological lens that he’s able to view the world through. But let’s get back to the example of the origin of life. I would like to ask you the question:
Why is evolution the best way to determine the origin of life?
A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time
B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time
C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time
D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life
E) All of the above
Have you noticed something? Every answer I gave has nothing to do with the origin of life. Not a single one tells you how life began, it only tells you how it has grown or functions. Even with the reasoning of chance/randomness through a large quantity of time that is offered in the option of (B) & (C), it does not explain how life began at all. How life came from non life or even how that non life came into existence. The pillar under all of this is the assumption that evolution can explain the origin of life, when in actual reality all it can tell you is how we descended (& changed) from the first life.
How does stuff like this happen? How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?
Last edited: