Should the tactic be to get Evolutionists to admit to an even crazier belief or...?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So in debate you have this thing called hyperbole, and you basically just carry an argument to an extreme.

This makes the argument look either implausible or lacking in context; Evolution clearly lacks context (because it takes liberties with the limitations of emergent possibility).

The thing is I have successfully qualified the core argument Evolutionists make and now there is a sort of impasse, or no man's land, between my position and theirs and I can't think of anything that would make them want to come to my side, but irrational hyperbole that I've been frequently accused of abusing, despite the fact that I have been copied, supported and tacitly requested to continue with (regardless of how irrational that forces me to be).

So I am stuck. I don't like making crazy arguments. There is almost no constructive way of reasoning an alternative once principle is in check and I'm not doing scientific experiments to establish the limitations of emergent possibility (that I mentioned in the brackets above). I fully expect that science will shortly establish that the fundamental constraints of the genome and its epigenome are such that changes in type are just not possible - ie. that changes in type are only possible one (cell) to many (not many to many, not many to one (cell)).

I guess I'm saying its basically unfair that people should have a monopoly on whether people who serve them reason rationally or not (but I think I may be supposing that it's not a mistake to serve people, with the assumption that you can agree with them how you think you are doing the service).

I will stop there.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi there,

So in debate you have this thing called hyperbole, and you basically just carry an argument to an extreme.

This makes the argument look either implausible or lacking in context; Evolution clearly lacks context (because it takes liberties with the limitations of emergent possibility).

The thing is I have successfully qualified the core argument Evolutionists make and now there is a sort of impasse, or no man's land, between my position and theirs and I can't think of anything that would make them want to come to my side, but irrational hyperbole that I've been frequently accused of abusing, despite the fact that I have been copied, supported and tacitly requested to continue with (regardless of how irrational that forces me to be).

So I am stuck. I don't like making crazy arguments. There is almost no constructive way of reasoning an alternative once principle is in check and I'm not doing scientific experiments to establish the limitations of emergent possibility (that I mentioned in the brackets above). I fully expect that science will shortly establish that the fundamental constraints of the genome and its epigenome are such that changes in type are just not possible - ie. that changes in type are only possible one (cell) to many (not many to many, not many to one (cell)).

I guess I'm saying its basically unfair that people should have a monopoly on whether people who serve them reason rationally or not (but I think I may be supposing that it's not a mistake to serve people, with the assumption that you can agree with them how you think you are doing the service).

I will stop there.

Theistic evolutionists have the problem that many of them are also resurrection-ists, and new-birth-ists and virgin-birth-ists and ... when it comes to the historic accounts of the NT - but when it comes to the Gen 1-2 historic account of origins in the OT they suddenly wake up to the fact that the historic accounts of scripture include the description of God-made miracles.

And they want us all to be shocked and then suggest that maybe in the one case of the creation historic account - the miracle cannot happen because of some guesses made about rocks or fossils.

Let's take a few "guesses" about how unlikely it is for a dead person to get up after 3 days.

in Christ,

Bob