Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • We stand with Ukraine. Please consider supporting Ukraine through a qualified organization.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[__ Science __ ] Is Improbability the Best Argument Against Evolution?

Vinny37

Member
From
West Yorks.
Gender
Male
Messages
36
Joined
Aug 22, 2018
For the probability of evolution, have you read Perry Marshall's Evolution 2.0? In short, he rejects Random Evolutionism, and Intelligent Design, and postulates Intelligent Evolution, God having top-loaded intelligence into the basic cell of life to go forth and evolve. IE is great for underling weaknesses to RE, but fails to satisfy me by postulating punctuated interventions by deity. For my money it's IE for a scientific explanation based on the premise that life cannot have been kickstarted by mere universal randomness.
 

Barbarian

Member
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
29,092
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Some IDers actually use the "front-loaded" argument for God creating a universe that will carry out His will. There's good reason to think so; His word that the earth brought forth living things, for example. Since evolution is observed every day, I think that AIG has confused "evolution" and "common descent"; it wouldn't be the first time they did that.
 

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,702
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Eh, this is about what I expected from AIG. If you start with a conclusion then dissmiss any evidence that doesn't aline with that conclusion, you are not doing deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is where a person builds off of already established truths. If an Apple falls from a tree, and an Apple has always fallen when observed, it's deductive to assume an apple will fall if not supported.

Creation science always has the problem of not building off of established truths.
If we wanted to establish the phenomenon of organisms changing and adapting through generations, we need a mechanic to explain how it's happening.


That is the real reason Evolutionary Theory isn't abandoned, no solid theory has been able to replace the current evidence.
 

Vinny37

Member
From
West Yorks.
Gender
Male
Messages
36
Joined
Aug 22, 2018
Eh, this is about what I expected from AIG. If you start with a conclusion then dissmiss any evidence that doesn't aline with that conclusion, you are not doing deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is where a person builds off of already established truths. If an Apple falls from a tree, and an Apple has always fallen when observed, it's deductive to assume an apple will fall if not supported.

Creation science always has the problem of not building off of established truths.
If we wanted to establish the phenomenon of organisms changing and adapting through generations, we need a mechanic to explain how it's happening.


That is the real reason Evolutionary Theory isn't abandoned, no solid theory has been able to replace the current evidence.
That was why Perry Marshall abandoned Creationism as defined by ID. He argued that evolution is observable in real time, that uncreated code is essential throughout the whole process, and gets some knocks by IDers. It's only the old randomness idea added to evolution which Perry denied any science basis to.
 

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,702
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
That was why Perry Marshall abandoned Creationism as defined by ID. He argued that evolution is observable in real time, that uncreated code is essential throughout the whole process, and gets some knocks by IDers. It's only the old randomness idea added to evolution which Perry denied any science basis to.
I don't really have many issues with old earth creationists. I'm not sure what code specificly is being addresses. I'll have to read his work.
 
Top