bjray
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
All right, for starters. I cannot for the sake of my own time respond to everyone one of your questions or comments. I would also like to point out, Cubists and others, that I have at no time in my posts admitted or actually “whined” or accused evolutionists about being nasty: | Quote | | whine about how mean those nasty evilutionismustistas are to say those terribly, terribly hurtful things? |
I have pointed out the use of “harsh” language, but a far cry from whining. One of my goals is to not be like the other Creationists you have come in contact with here on this forum, like, not being one of those who whines or moans about whatever responses are given. Frankly, I’m glad you (all) express yourself and in some cases, show me the ropes, on some of the issues you bring out. (I’m not typically on forums discussing evolution/creationism.) But, I’d like to point out some of your bad logic. You mentioned that “you say these things” because you “believe they’re true.” Well, if I believed that the sky was really red, it doesn’t mean it is true. Anyhow..
I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang. While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them. Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual. (Here is another goal of mine; namely, to put back on your table the possibility of creation by a designer. You’re right, mentioning creation does imply a designer. That’s my point. I believe this world did not just materialize on its own, but was in fact created. This fits the best evidence I have. (Go ahead, get caught up on “what evidence”.) I’m trying not to explain the nth degree of everything, because (as I have said before) I cannot. Thus, I won’t try to explain nth degree details. Some explanation yes, but nitty gritty is not in my ability (or any one for that matter). Evolutionary explanations for such things: ie: big bang, commit a logical fallacy. Let me explain the best I know how.
The fallacious logic is as such: If you have A and B is a result of A, then anytime you have A, B must take place. In other words, if B, then we know A. However, what happens if there are multiple A’s. If A, or Aa, or Ab, or Ac….then B happens. If B happens, then we know one of the A’s had to have happened. However, without evidence of which A caused B, then how can we know which one of the A’s did something? I submit to you that you can’t. I didn’t make this up. It’s how logic works: philosophy class.
So how does this coincide with what I’m saying? Let’s put the pieces together. Evolutionists are trying, like other scientists (including creationists) to understand how the people/animals have come about in this world. Evolution argues for common descent. What has been discovered by scientists is that various animals have similar traits—observable fact. This is exactly what common descent would expect. So, if A (animals have common descent), then B (they have similar traits), therefore A (common descent must be true). The fallacy has been committed (we have B, then A). There can be the possibility of other A’s. Ie: common descent (evolution is one), creationism (a designer is another). See (http://tinyurl.com/2bmo6gf)
Cubists, thank you for the lesson in gaining other people’s respect. I understand. Have you heard of agreeing to disagree or the likes of varying approaches to things? Although, there is an answer, so one of us is right, the other wrong.
The explanation of morality (previously mentioned by me as self-preservation, albeit the latter is probably considered a subset of the former) by evolution is incomplete, that’s why I have a problem with it. I go back to Darwin, although that is apparently the wrong thing to do (as mentioned by many of you). Evolution attempts to explain that morality fits within its theory based on kin and tribal survival. Ie: survival of the fittest and having the best care for the weaker among kin or the tribe. Thus, the “gene of self-sacrifice” is carried on due to the fittest taking care of the weaker among kin or tribe. Good, great, that may help explain some parts of morality (also..where’s the this gene of self-sacrifice?). But what about altruism and humans treating every human right, even if they know it cannot be reciprocated? Take wars for example. Almost every war has had some backlash of how a person’s own nation treated the other. Why is this? From an evolutionary perspective, why care about another. Because if self-preservation is a motive, is it really genuine care at all?
Cubists, your digression on why “real” scientists reject Creationism is troubling at best. Again, you continue to assert that that evolutionary thinking is the end all, explain all. I am open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking. I’ve been reading what you and others post. (Sorry I was looking for multiple answers to the questions I pose, which is why I repeated myself.)
All right, till next time.
P.s. J-Dogg, I am thankful for the responses I have gotten.
|
