All major religions claim to know things that they can’t possibly know – This is why all major religions are wrong.
That is plainly illogical reasoning.
No, it is facts.
What specifically did I say that you find wrong ?
It simply does not follow that because all religions make claims about the supernatural that to some degree must be taken by faith, that therefore they are wrong.
Making a claim without evidence and with only faith to rely on… Is not wrong ? Are you joking
Darwinism doesn’t purpose to answer the question of the origin of life. It purports to answer the question of the diversity of life. It is, in fact, the only theory in its field.
Sean Carroll is very happy to apply this logic to the beginning of the universe. There are many many many models, 3 of which he has had a hand in developing. He is happy to admit they are all probably wrong. That’s because there are many models in the field, purporting to answer the same questions.
Besides, I prefer the Matt Dilahunty version: they can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.
Darwinism may not propose to answer how the first life arose, but it does claim to know how new life did.
That is not the implication of the video. You clearly imply that Darwinism is a model “of the origin of life”. Which is wrong.
And no, what Darwinism purports to answer is, as I say above, “the question of the diversity of life”; it does not claim to answer how “new life” arose. That’s things like sexual reproduction.
And as it is the only theory answering that question, the logic doesn’t apply.
It would apply if we had dozens of models and no empirical evidence to separate them.
The logic does apply in cosmogony. As per Sean Carroll (above).
By “new life” I mean new forms of life. But the point of the video was not to claim that Darwinism is false, only that such reasoning is faulty.
Okay. But can you see how it fails?
The reasoning applies when many models which are insufficient supported or distinguished evidentially all apply to the same question.
Biological evolution doesn’t fit the criteria: it’s unique in its field for the level of evidence and lack of opponent models.
Biological evolution may be the only game in town from a materialistic worldview, but not from one that doesn’t rule out the supernatural.
As for the many religions, to imply that they are all insufficiently “supported or distinguished evidentially” is misrepresenting the facts. They are very different and none is better supported evidentially than Christianity.
I’m sure they do.
That was meant to prompt you to actually present the evidence…
And maybe explain the evidence that is lacking for Islam.
I’ve presented the evidence for God in multiple posts, and here I focus on the evidence for Christianity: https://caroline-smith.com/2016/03/01/do-we-have-a-better-word-2/
I haven’t posted much on Islam because I feel my role is to present what I believe to be true, and if my arguments are convincing, they will de facto show contrary arguments to be false. But here’s a great book on Islam written by a former Muslim apologist, if you’re interested in investigating the evidence yourself: https://www.amazon.com/God-but-One-Investigates-Christianity-ebook/dp/B01863JQXO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533406626&sr=8-1&keywords=no+god+but+one+nabeel+qureshi
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Like my page on Facebook, Friendlier Theist, for more resources and reasons to believe.