Subduction Zone
Regular Member
You recognize a painting because you have seen people paint. We have not observed the formation of a universe. You are once again using a God of the Gaps Fallacy.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You recognize a painting because you have seen people paint. We have not observed the formation of a universe. You are once again using a God of the Gaps Fallacy.The only alternative to a Creator is nothing existing. If we find a cave painting ...even if it looks like a mentally deficient first grader did it ,we assume an intelligent being was involved.
But when we find out our DNA is more complicated than a supercomputer we don't assume the same?
I think you have to turn in your common sense to be an evolutionary scientist.
Then why did Strathos correct you with this?Even worse for you, mine were not shown to be wrong.
I know AV claims the Grand Canyon at least formed separately from the flood.
No, wrong. We are simply observing that there are limits to our observations. We are also observing that you cannot come up with any reliable evidence for your God.Basically you have to appeal to your own ignorance and claim that because science can't explain a first cause, there probably wasn't one. But the very existance of rules in the universe should make the scientific argument for you, that something or someone outside of the universe had to set things in motion.
C S Lewis was a very good writer, sometimes. But was not a scientist. He was a theologian who struggled with raging doubt. His books are an attempt to justify his faith. And some of those books do show how shaky his faith was.So it's not guided? "
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’" ( CS Lewis)
And they are still trying to prop up the idea of a universe that has laws for no discernible reason.
That was an observation and not a correction. If I remember correctly your claim was that God deliberately mislead people. In other words you in effect claimed he lied.Then why did Strathos correct you with this?
The issue is that not that creationists deny natural selection it is creationist misunderstanding of natural selection that is the issue.Are you still holding up that massive strawman that creationist deny natural selection?
Sounds par.That was an observation and not a correction. If I remember correctly your claim was that God deliberately mislead people. In other words you in effect claimed he lied.
Your beliefs do tell us that you think that. Even though you try to deny it. That is why even most creationists do not agree with you. The claim that God planted false evidence (your claim) is seen as sacrilege by many.Sounds par.
How do you know I think that? I don't have to have science explain a first cause in order to conclude that there was one, but I don't regard it as a scientific question at all. Science, as I said, is limited to observing and studying the orderly behavior of nature and that is as far a science can go. It neither affirms nor denies the existence of that which it cannot observe and study.Basically you have to appeal to your own ignorance and claim that because science can't explain a first cause, there probably wasn't one.
It makes a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.But the very existence of rules in the universe should make the scientific argument for you, that something or someone outside of the universe had to set things in motion.
Well I guess I can't say you didn't warn me that you would consider it such:If I remember correctly your claim was that God deliberately mislead people. In other words you in effect claimed he lied.
Seeing as how you had to make this a YEC issue and not an Embedded Age one.The contradiction tells us that the canyon has to be extremely old. A young Earth model cannot explain this unless you posit a dishonest God and that would seem to be blasphemy to me.
LOL -- keep posting.Your beliefs do tell us that you think that. Even though you try to deny it. That is why even most creationists do not agree with you. The claim that God planted false evidence (your claim) is seen as sacrilege by many.
And that there is no "macro evolution".
Unless you can come up with a credible explanation why not, "embedded age" is dishonesty.Well I guess I can't say you didn't warn me that you would consider it such:Seeing as how you had to make this a YEC issue and not an Embedded Age one.
Anyone can make a dishonest claim about me, then say I'm accusing God of being dishonest.
It's dishonest on their part ... but par.
Embedded age is a failed argument. There would be no need for your embedded age. It serves no purpose except to mislead. That is why it amounts to you claiming that God lied. If the Christian God cannot lie then embedded age is a failed claim.Well I guess I can't say you didn't warn me that you would consider it such:Seeing as how you had to make this a YEC issue and not an Embedded Age one.
Anyone can make a dishonest claim about me, then say I'm accusing God of being dishonest.
It's dishonest on their part ... but par.
Are you really interested in exploring possible solutions to those problems--which is what scientists do--or would your rather they remained unsolved as a support for your own position?What a Strange statement: Clearly at genetic level there are multiple levels. From simple genetic switching (micro evolution), to addition of chromosomes (macro evolution) which needs mirroring in male and female for the line to evolve, they are radically different as is the representation of them in function.
A macroevolution physical rather than genetic change is for example how a three chamber heart became four. THe problem is the replumbing. The flows , timings and sequences have to reverse. It is not adequate explanation to propose a vestigial chamber to gradually gain more significance. A surgeon would struggle to keep a patient alive undertaking such an operation reversing of flows. So how did blind variation do this?
So macro evolution problems are very real.
A statement which science does not make.Like stating no first cause.
So you have no defense for your actions. Didn't think so.LOL -- keep posting.
So it's not guided? "
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’" ( CS Lewis)
And they are still trying to prop up the idea of a universe that has laws for no discernible reason.
What a Strange statement: Clearly at genetic level there are multiple levels. From simple genetic switching (micro evolution), to addition of chromosomes (macro evolution) which needs mirroring in male and female for the line to evolve, they are radically different as is the representation of them in function.
A macroevolution physical rather than genetic change is for example how a three chamber heart became four. THe problem is the replumbing. The flows , timings and sequences have to reverse. It is not adequate explanation to propose a vestigial chamber to gradually gain more significance. A surgeon would struggle to keep a patient alive undertaking such an operation reversing of flows. So how did blind variation do this?
So macro evolution problems are very real.
Breeding dogs with longer legs, is a non issue compared to many macroevolutionary jumps, as indeed the lack of progression path to the massively complex cell,a macroevolutionary change lacking in explanation.
In fact Many interesting falasies in this thread.
Like stating no first cause. Those who assume the scientific model is more than just a model, and so that it underpins an objective reality, by definition must also accept Scientific model which is causal because the scientifc process relies on causality to determine the laws which describe cause and effect. Therefore there must be a cause! YOu can only reject first cause by considering the model is only a model, in which case the jury is out on everything else fundamental.
The world of science is more gap than explanation.
I fully expect YECs to disagree with me.Even YEC's recognize your error,
Do you think that helps you?I fully expect YECs to disagree with me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?