RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 9:52 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2019 at 10:31 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 4, 2019 at 9:26 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(August 4, 2019 at 9:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well, sure it does, implicitly. “If the eye couldn’t have evolved, Therefore Jesus”, right? I mean, if you’re a Christian then that is your argument. It kind of has to be, or else you aren’t a Christian, lol. And I’m pointing out that your argument from ignorance is fallacious. Do you not believe that god created everything? You can’t expect atheists to explain the evolution of the eye to you down to the finest detail, while not proffering any sort of mechanism for your own hypothesis. Remember, lying for Jesus is still lying.
Christianity is more in conflict with origins than it is with whatever happens after. Evolution falls in the safe zone, which as a mechanism it doesn't say anything about origins. But to be fair, if a conflict does exist, then I'm sure most Christians would say "God did it, therefore it couldn't have evolved" not "It couldn't have evolved, therefore God did it."
I'm not sure why a new hypothesis needs to be offered in order to point out that the existing one is flawed? Can you expound on that further?
One doesn’t. But, if you, a Christian, came here to an atheist forum with the intention of pointing out a perceived flaw in evolution and then tipping your hat at us on the way out without a word about Christ, I’ll eat both my shoes. Do you think this is our first rodeo?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
