Christ or chaos the Creator?

short segment of Dr. AE Wilder-Smith

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• creation
• evolution
• Jesus
• Christ
• God

[chiprohlke]

Actually mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain either:

1. the origin of life

2. the lack of fossil evidence for evolution

3. the apparent fixity in nature that limits variation

4. the necessity for multitudes of changes at one time and with obvious success as a systemic whole.

Mutation is not a sufficient causative factor as even leading evolutionists are beginning to admit.

[5tonyvvvv]

@chiprohlke Homochirality destroys evolution.."This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.

Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction...Intelligence created life..God beless

[Here4Yeshua]

@tskasa1 I wil ask again and please note the difference between presuppose and assume, do you or do you not presuppose your observation is what it is and not something else when you observe? You do not seem to understand this question. I mean take it as a given something is what it is. This has nothing to do with nomenclature, its not man made, these statements show you seem to not understand the question, its about logical laws, not the meaning of words. How do you now words are words?

[Here4Yeshua]

@tskasa1 Have you ever had a basic introduction to philosophy? I ask not to be rude but because you seem to not really understand the topic at hand. You seem to fail to grasp what I am asking you about. I am asking how it is you do science without presupposing laws of logic fist? So tell me where it is that you can dig up and measure your rule "you cannot make a valid self contradictory point" AKA the law of non contradiction. If your evidence is only empirical show me CONT....

[tskasa1]

@chiprohlke

"3. the apparent fixity in nature that limits variation"

There is no such thing. None at all.

"4. the necessity for multitudes of changes at one time and with obvious success as a systemic whole."

No.... There is no such necessity.....

"Mutation is not a sufficient causative factor"

It isn't. You also need Natural Selection. Together, they can.

"as even leading evolutionists are beginning to admit."

Not. A. Single. One. Says. ANY. Of. This.

[tskasa1]

@chiprohlke

"1. the origin of life"

Mutation and Natural Selection comprise evolution. Evolution is COMPLETELY different from Abiogenesis.

"2. the lack of fossil evidence for evolution"

Stop quote mining SJ Gould. Seriously, he even answered this claim himself and very clearly stated that his words had been taken out of context and contorted into a complete lie by the creationists.

[tskasa1]

@Here4Yeshua

(cont.)

Of course you don't assume that something with a certain name is something else under nomenclature. That would defeat the entire purpose of nomenclature to begin with! The purpose being to form a coherent structure with which you can express what each "thing" is through a verbal/written system.

[tskasa1]

@Here4Yeshua

"when you observe or read nomenclature, do you not assume it means what it means and not something else,"

Because nomenclature is a way to classify and share other things. It is the basis of what language is based on.

For example, the word person:

English- person

Spanish- persona

Chinese- 人 (ren)

All three of these words are completely different yet they still relate to the exact same thing. That being, a person.

[tskasa1]

@Here4Yeshua

"At what point can "you" actually not presuppose the law of identity"

Identity is a completely invented value made by humans through the use of nomenclature. As I've already stated, this is an issue of nomenclature.

"or non contradiction when you observe?"

You can never make a valid, self contradictory point.... It is, by it's very definition, an oxymoron....

[tskasa1]

@Here4Yeshua

"IS this what you really mean?"

Pretty much, yes. Logical Laws are derived from what can technically be called observations. They exist as so to prevent fallacious, unjustified arguments; as well as to impose argumentative coherence and prevent self-contradicting arguments.