Quote originally posted by FrostPheonix:
Didn't expect everyone would get offended. And I also hope you guys think about it from my perspective before you go calling me ignorant. I'll just ignore anything I might take as an insult...
View original post
Offended by what? You provided a premise and a conclusion and we told you why it's hogwash in itself. Just a typical day for any Philosopher.
HarrisonH committed a fallacy Philosophers like to call the Inconsistency Ad Hominem. What you said is not refuted simply because you do other things that are not mentioned in your bible, such as browsing the internet.
Now, you argue that Evolution is not mentioned in the Bible, therefore, it's false. That's not exactly an argument that can be dealt with unless you add another premise: What exactly is false if its not in the Bible? Science? Everything? I will not say anything yet, as this is not a developed argument. And so, nobody can even say if what you said is valid or not.
The claim that God created through evolution is best described as Intelligent Design. But it would be nice if you could say why that is not true. Or at least finally say if you are in favor of Creationism and what the details of that belief are.
I could think of more, eventually, but thats what comes to mind atm. Hope I answered any claims that I am being ignorant.
I haven't done much research on irreducible complexity, but the arguments do feel flimsy. For example, what does it mean for a system of parts 'to work'? Yes, if you remove a part of the system, it will probably not do the same function as before, but it can probably still function.
Evolution can definitely explain how a part that appears irreducibly complex still come about. The system might have had a different function with just slightly different parts. But a strong push or mutation can theoretically alter parts of the system to change the system itself into something irreducibly complex. This is much better explained in Richard Dawkin's (in)famous book The God Delusion. I also found a video on Youtube that uses computer technology to sort of 'evolve' clocks in a computer program, inductively proving that there can and will be missing links in the fossil record, and that most 'valid' irreducibly complex arguments are flawed as they don't rely on the definition of life [E.g. the watch and the watchmaker]
The most logical thing to believe, as Atheists, would be that there was a first event--the cause of the Big Bang-- and nothing more. Physics and Mathematics took their place as the rulers of the universe and decided for our physical existence. By consequence, we should also believe that consciousness is nothing more than an effect of the functions of our brain, and can be explained someday. We essentially have no free will and are at the mercy of the laws of Quantum Mechanics.
The depressing but scientifically plausible nature of our beliefs are probably why people think we're some goddamn chronically depressed masochists.