excretion
- Thread starter billwald
- Start date
- Status
Your curious interests have an twisted bias.
aharvey
New member
Originally posted by bob b
The situation would appear to be the same physically whether our bodies evolved or not.
Or is this another one of those "God wouldn't have done it that way" arguments that Darwin, Gould and others thought were so compelling?
I always thought it strange that a person could argue that God wouldn't have done it that way and then in almost the same breath turn around and argue that God doesn't exist.
Bob, Knight, I don't think you understand the true nature of the argument :shocked:
It goes like this:
1. FACT (or OBSERVATION).
2. EXPLANATION of said fact/observation as provided by
a. model one (for example, evolutionary theory).
b. model two (for example, creationism).
c. etc.
I'm not sure I agree with billwald's original fact (remember, scientifically speaking, a fact is not the same as a proven truth, and so could be incorrect). However, you seem to be (intentionally?) distorting his logical construct. He hasn't said anything like model 2 is false (i.e., "God wouldn't do it this way" ). He asked what's model two's explanation? (i.e., "why would God do it this way?"). The two are hardly the same!
And Knight, shame on you. Surely by now you understand that evolution does not "work" to produce "perfect" organisms! "Apparent adaptations" and "apparent imperfections" are both universal realities. The question is, which model provides the most compelling explanations for both? Not just in a vague, generic, arm-waving sort of fashion, but on a specific, case by case basis as well. The problem is, of course, that until creationism gets some sort of legitimate scientific basis (at this point we'd settle for a coherent, specific model!), it will be unable to provide any explanations beyond "because that's how God did it," and any support beyond "there's only one other alternative, and it's obvious that that one's WRONG!!!"
- Status