[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Evolution does not need to fill gaps.
Evolution is a process with no care for our understanding of it. It neither needs nor wants us to discover it.
Easy, full, simplistic revelation is the purview of the fantasy and the fairy tale. (You know, stories about talking animals and 900 year old men.) The real world deals in fragments, requires solving.
This kind of science – this kind of inquiry – is not built of certainties (if, indeed, anything at all is). It consists of evidence, evidence which suggests patterns, patterns which suggest processes. The evidence is there for you to see. You (Nick) say that you have never heard a good argument for evolution. As it is clear that you have not examined the evidence – you seem not, even, to have spent all that much time examining the Christian Bible, in which you allege yourself to believe – this is a personal problem, and the remedy is likewise yours to seek.
So, as promised:
“If the question goes unanswered again, I will assume that the answer is ‘silence,’ and I will consider the debate resolved.”[/quote]
Oh, brother. You show so many signs of a closed mind. You’re a cult member and don’t even realize it.
Remember, when you’re walking by those glass houses with a pocket full of stones don’t…
[/quote]
This is an empty post.
But now that you’re here, I’ve asked you my question before, and you have never even attempted to answer it (not that I blame you – you can’t answer it). It is clear that cwill and Nick are not going to answer it. Perhaps you’d like to:
You say Gen 2:7 happened. This is your abiogenesis/evolution – your particular, specific account of man’s origin.
The evolutionist takes the stage and makes his case, offers the specific and direct evidence in specific and direct support of the particular claims constituting his argument. Experimental evidence of genetic mutation, fossil record, etc. He speaks at length.
You are called to the stage. You read Gen 2:7. And you tell us – good god have we been waiting for a long damn time – on what specific and direct evidence you claim it to be the account of man’s origin, of all the many thousands, to which we thinking adult homines sapientes sapientes are compelled or pressured by reason to subscribe.
Gen 2:7. God man clay nostril breath. Why? Why would a grown up believe this? Give me one single shred of evidence which directly and specifically supports the conclusion that of all the great many alternatives, this here is the one. I’m all ears.[/quote]
Your mistake is grounding your argument in logic. Nietzsche critiqued logic itself arguing that it in no way represents reality but is merely a utilitarian paradigm that man developed in order to navigate through an apparently meaningless environment. Other philosophers, generally classed as part of the counter-enlightenment movement repudiated reason and empiricism altogether and saw the entire history of metaphysics from the pre-Socratics onwards as a philosophical regression.[/quote]
Indeed, Nietzsche was antilogic. I might find fault with the structural principles of the human brain too, if syphilis or mental illness were slowly marching through my head, raping and pillaging as they went.
I’m mostly joking, of course, but I do submit that Nietzsche was a smart yet hackish and ultimately second-rate thinker who made few actually useful contributions to philosophy.
Either way, though, the point is sort of moot. Perhaps logic is a sham; perhaps it isn’t. We have little choice but to assume the latter, and, if we are wrong, by what form of reasoning or argument will anybody tell us so? Who will chastise us, and with what words produced by way of what brain process?
Even more importantly, I do understand that you feel this way – you have said something like this before – but the point is that my opponents here do not. In other words, it is not I who am applying logic to the Bible – indeed, I believe that the thing (as allegedly veracious account of historical-scientific-philosophical-literal truth) is illogical to such an obvious extent that the observation itself is cheap. It is the apologist who believes himself not only right but logical, scientifically and philosophically equipped for victory…reasonable. If Push & Co. were to take the position expressed here by you, I would not be making the argument that I’m making. It would not even remotely apply. In fact, I would have little argument to make, other than to say, “suit yourself.”