Dear schnell,
When I present a reasoning, if you try to get the spirit of reasoning, you benefit. If you concentrate on the words, you lose the whole point.
A Mathematic Perspective on Evolution
by Saethydd 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
WhatshallIcallmyself
I guess it's turtles all the way down then. Unless you wish to suspend your 'logic' to allow for your preference of deity, whether that be supernatural or not...
-
schnell
When I present a reasoning, if you try to get the spirit of reasoning, you benefit. If you concentrate on the words, you lose the whole point.
I got your reasoning just fine. You believe in a personal god and are resistant to anything but intelligent design, regardless of the flaws, contradictions, and infinite regress inherent in intelligent design.
-
cofty
anointed1 - You listed some books you have read about evolution. Thank you. Those books lay out incontrovertible evidence that every living thing evolved from a common ancestor.
You dismiss that without comment and try to distract everybody with a mistaken objection about information theory.
One step at a time. First let's address common ancestry. Please take a look at these questions that contain links to the answers...
-
anointed1
Cofty,
From all your 10 questions, 3 and 10 are the sample:
1) 3)Why do humans and other species have broken genetic code for features that they no longer possess?
10)How does creationism explain bad design like the recurrent laryngeal nerve?This is like asking why Shakespeare wrote “more richer” in one of his dramas? This does not help us in anyway to make conclusion about his English knowledge because he has consistently written in other parts of the dramas about richer, richer .. and richer.
In the same way, flaws in some parts of the design is not the basis for conclusion about The Designer. Couples who have good eye-sight have given birth to child who is blind from birth and yet their other children are with good eye-sight. Then there is this situation also—both husband and wife are blind, yet gave births to children who have good eye-sight. And their next generation continues with no blind children. For all these there is localized explanation which would show that everything happens according to some law, and law presupposes The Law-giver.
And there is no need to identify who that Law Giver is because history shows that He wants to remain unidentified.
I know people would react to this differently—that is natural. Sight of a flower creates various responses in people. A poet is inspired to write a poem, a devotee feels like offering it to his/her God, a lover thinks of gifting it to his/her beloved, flower-merchant thinks of selling it, a scientist would think of its chemical combinations, a worm comes and eats it leaving it ugly-looking and a butterfly simply comes and enjoys its nectar … etc. But only a philosopher makes extraordinary benefit because he views flower as a symbol of unconditional love—it weaves beauty which it cannot see, spreads fragrance which it cannot smell and produces nectar which it cannot enjoy—everything what a flower does is for the benefit of others! Thus a true philosopher is motivated to exhibit this unconditional love (which is originally shown by the designer through His designs such as flower …) and people around him appreciate him as epitome of beauty, fragrance and sweetness.
-
Vidiot
@ the naysayers...
Our planet is in a constant state of change.
If life didn't change (to adapt to it), how is life still here?
-
WhatshallIcallmyself
"For all these there is localized explanation which would show that everything happens according to some law, and law presupposes The Law-giver." - anointed1
No it doesn't! At least not in the sense you are implying here. We are the law givers because it is we that are making observations of our environment. We notice things work a certain way and set out to explain it. We make the laws.
Back to your point now. Unless you can offer up some evidence that a "Law-giver" exists you have no reason to posit a deity over 'it just works that way'. This presupposition is something that Craig Lane talks about a lot. I guess that is the sort of books you are reading and hence the baffelgab above...
-
cofty
Not even wrong anointed1.
-
redvip2000
Besides I also read books written by Former Evolutionists who now believe in creation, and they all share this interesting view:
Former evolutionists? These were not folks that believed in evolution because of evidence in the first place. If they were, they would require stronger evidence to change their mind, but creationism has no evidence at all.
I can also say that evolution is not true, but in my case my default option B is that a group of aliens planted 2 humans on planet earth and then left. That's right I don't have evidence for that either, but I have my own custom argument from ignorance.
-
Vidiot
By and large, evolutionists accept it based on reason and evidence.
Creationists, however, reject it based on ideology.