Critique of Atheism

Presuppositional approach to epistemology

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• bahnsen
• atheism
• atheist
• god
• bible
• truth

[FrankLightheart]

@1tmoch Dude, the denial is just coming off of you in waves.

You seem to accept that a species can change over time. You even accept the mechanisms that propel it. Yet you can't admit that the very things that you're accepting are, in fact, evolution. It's as if the only thing holding you back is the word itself.

Why do you feel this way? What is wrong with animals evolving? What is wrong with us being a part of it? It's not as if it changes anything. You can still believe in God, if you wish.

[1tmoch]

@1tmoch Part 2: The differences in a species or natural selection have limits and do not produce new info. It needs to have available that which it “selects.” Breeding is all that is going on here. We humans conducting the breeding of other animals makes it go quicker. Either way, i'm interested as to why you'd care to split hairs so much over something like this? Looking at it from your side of the fence it seems a great waste of time.

[1tmoch]

@FrankLightheart I'm talking about the whole story of evo-heads VS. that which has been observed. What we as a people have observed (things which you mentioned and more) i am with you on, but it is a leap in the dark to suggest extrapolation all the way backwards. The fact that certain organisms can no longer mate, just shows that the DNA is getting more corrupted and weak, saying nothing of evolution.

[FrankLightheart]

@1tmoch Oh, you want examples of OBSERVED evolution. Evolution in action.

That's easy enough. There are several examples of speciation out there. Groups of organisms that have changed enough over time that they can no longer breed with the species they derived from. Salamanders, fruit flies, mice.

Hell, breeding is a process that exploits the process of evolution, only it moves faster because instead of natural selection, we use deliberate selection. Dogs, cats, cows, corn, peas, bananas.

[1tmoch]

@FrankLightheart What i think is irrelevant. The question is what has been observed? And the answer is very little, so i accept very little change within a "species." The question of origins is not something empirical means can attain knowledge to. I can become tolerant of certain buggies or drugs, but that says nothing in the area of Darwinian dogma. I don't know why evolutionists have a hard time seeing that they are just ASSUMING things.

[FrankLightheart]

@1tmoch Well, that's a step in the right direction, at least. Natural selection is, after all, the corner stone of the evolutionary theory.

Let me ask you, then. Who decides what these limits are? You seem capable of excepting that a species can become tolerant to penicillin. You can agree that such a species is not the same as it once was. How much would a population of organisms have to change before they could be considered another species?

[1tmoch]

@FrankLightheart That bacteria becomes resistant to certain antibiotics is something that is completely understandable without any notions of Darwinian evolution in mind. All Christians believe in natural selection, but we understand there have been observed limits. The rest is a hypothesis story, irrelevant to any advance.

[FrankLightheart]

@1tmoch Modern day flu shots and such are developed to try and keep up with diseases that are constantly mutating. Scientists understand that these organisms are evolving in reaction to the previous vaccines that were used. By understanding the process of evolution, they can better predict and prepare for what these diseases will do. Without our working model of how life changes, we would not be able to do that.

[1tmoch]

@1tmoch Lastly, "science" doesn't "work." It is a method that scientists can use. The interpretation of certain data points can be erroneous, or accurate. Only where God is sovereignly in control and promised to maintain regularity in the universe can there be a viable platform by which to expect uniformity in nature. Inductive inference only works on my presuppositions, not one of random chance mutations and explosions. Christians laid the seed bed of modern science, and secularist took over.

[1tmoch]

@FrankLightheart You are misunderstanding me. "Natural processes" are just things that happen. Certain of these processes might help explain certain other processes, but it itself needs to be accounted for. This goes back so far to the point that what....everything came from nothing, or matter being eternal? BTW, vaccines development has nothing to do with understanding the hypothesis of evolution. Giving attenuated forms of the bacteria to hopefully develop auto immunity is non sequitur.