> The capacity to think critically cannot spring from rocks or primordial goo. Something cannot come from nothing.
You're misrepresenting evolution here by doing the very thing you accuse me of doing, skipping steps. Please learn how evolution actually works before criticizing it.
> What is the ground of logic? What is the source of rationality? What are the necessary preconditions of the intelligibility that you seek to discover via experimentation and observation?
These questions are almost nonsensical. Logic, rationality, intelligibility, observation all occur in the mind. The ability to understand and think about these topics is something humans have evolved to do, not because philosophy is evolutionarily advantageous, but higher brain function in general was.
> What is the metaphysical basis for assuming that what is observed today will persist tomorrow?
There is no such thing as the "metaphysical". At least so far no demonstrable evidence anything metaphysical exists. But if you have such evidence why waste time talking to me. Present it to the scientific community and claim your nobel prize.
> Christian theism can.
Look if your religion makes you feel better good for you. I happen to think the Christian religion (along with most other religions for that matter) do more harm than good in the world, and I will speak out against it whenever I have the opportunity.
Are you saying that evolution *doesn't* teach that such cognitive capacities sprung from non-sentient matter to sentient matter by the addition of time plus chance, though guided along by natural selection and survival of the fittest?
Are you saying that evolution *doesn't* teach that "water rose above its source" by a slow and gradual accretion of beneficial mutations?
Perhaps you're right and Darwin has been rejected.
There is no such thing as the metaphysical?
How have you arrived at this conclusion with such certainty? How do you know with such certainty that something doesn't exist unless you can observe or measure it? Can you observe or measure that claim itself?
You set up a straw-man by how you represented evolution and now you're giving a *more* accurate version of it for the purpose of...playing some kind of dishonest word game? So you do know how it works but your playing dumb just to argue for arguing sake? If you're just going to be a troll like that other guy you can fuck off.
Oh and don't forget I said that _so far_ there's no evidence for the metaphysical. So I'm not making the claim. The theists are claiming the metaphysical exists, so the burden of proof lies with them; AKA you.
No, not at all: my shortcut for the above is "personhood/rationality doesn't spring from rocks" - no matter how much time and chance you add. Order does not come from disorder, and sentience cannot come from the non- sentient. I'm not arguing for argument's sake. Like you, I think this question is of utmost importance.
I'm also not trying to prove to you that God exists (I don't need to) because God has already revealed that to you. And he has told us that every one knows he exists but repress that knowledge. My purpose would be closer to reminding you what already know.
> no matter how much time and chance you add. Order does not come from disorder, and sentience cannot come from the non- sentient.
It's not time and chance, it's time and reproduction, little by little, bit by bit, there are many intermediate steps which can ultimately give rise to the emergence of something like sentience.
> because God has already revealed that to you.
No, nothing has been "revealed" to me.
> every one knows he exists but repress that knowledge.
I'm not repressing anything, and that's quite presumptuous to assume something like that about another person without knowing them.
> My purpose would be closer to reminding you what already know.
Then you're wasting your time, and perhaps so am I.
Thread collapsed
To add to this, one of the best proven laws in all of science is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that entropy always increases in a closed system. In other words things go from order to disorder, but evolution is disorder going to greater order. It is contrary to science. It only happens when an intelligence acts on the disorder to order it. In the case of a car or house, it is people creating the order. In the case of life, it is God creating the order. There are zero cases witnessed of information being added to a life form for benefit. The few mutations that have been seen that give a benefit are due to loss of information that gives that lifeform a benefit in one particular environment (usually a lab) but makes it less fit in the general environment of the whole world. Evolution is based on a desire to disprove a need for God and is based on stories. Even the idea of natural selection is just replacing God with nature. Nature can't select anything and definitely can't select a trait that will eventually lead to a benefit when combined with other future mutation. Yes, a few mutations give a benefit, but they are losses of information, not gains of information. Information (including the information in DNA) only comes from an intelligent mind.
With some handwaving arguments and millions of years, evolutionists can make evolution seem plausible, but when looked at in detail, it makes less sense. Evolutionists have also pretty much given up on showing how nonlife can become life because all attempts have failed so miserably. If they can't show that life can come from non-life then the whole theory falls apart completely.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
