tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post1563484172018505006..comments2023-08-08T07:59:14.554-07:00Comments on The Shipwreck of Time: Absurd in the Highest Degree (Part Two)Steven J.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post-81305713808361981892010-09-23T00:30:20.156-07:002010-09-23T00:30:20.156-07:00It occurs to me that one might perform a reductio ...It occurs to me that one might perform a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> on Comfort's attempted <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> of evolution. Comfort's argument:<br /><br />Eyes are very complex<br />Therefore, they to take a long time to develop in (e.g.) horses.<br />Therefore, evolutionists will argue that the earliest horses didn't have eyes.<br /><br />Now it is easy to show that any organ of a modern mammal is also too complex to have appeared all at once.<br /><br />Therefore, the same "argument" offered by Comfort WRT the eye could be repeated word-for-word, substituting "the nose" "the hooves" "the heart" "the skin," etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />So if one followed Comfort's "argument" to its "logical" conclusion, we would be left with:<br /><br />"Evolutionists argue that the earliest horse/whale/dog (etc.) did not have eyes, ears, nose, throat, skin, bones, muscles, veins, arteries..."<br /><br />I would like Comfort to show us a picture of that "earliest horse" from an "evolutionist" textbook. Barring that, I would like him to explain what this earliest horses did consist of, and how it could be distinguished from the earliest whale, or the earliest bannana.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15968745144779612135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post-34302587408302713492010-09-22T01:48:03.780-07:002010-09-22T01:48:03.780-07:00Ultimately, Ray only has 3 arguments: Variations o...Ultimately, Ray only has 3 arguments: Variations of 'god of the gaps',Pascal's wager and the tautological (and therefore ultimately useless) 'creation/creator'. Even the latter is somewhat dependant on a 'gap' to fill before it can be considered.<br /><br />Herein lies the real failure of Ray's anti-evolutionary twaddle: He tries to discredit evolution in a vain attempt to create a 'gap' to fill but even if he were able to achieve this glorious act of creation (which he clearly isn't) the conclusion 'therefore god' doesn't follow.<br /><br />The likes of Ken Ham also argue against evolution but their argument is, in a strange sense, more honest as they accept that evidence for evolution exists but discount it mainly due to its contradiction with supposed biblical inerrancy.<br /><br />For some reason Ray doesn't use this argument (is this connected to his refusal to state an opinion on the age of the earth?), presumably to try and maintain his position in an already crowded snake-oil market, preferring instead to relentlessly batter a parade of hideously misshapen strawman.<br /><br />This is poor apologetics and I fail to see how he and his minions can take it seriously.<br /><br />The above said, there is still value in taking apart his ridiculous attempts at scientific argument and I appreciate the methodical and patient way you achieve that.<br /><br />PhilPhilGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11627575438496887598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post-38282765706010575862010-09-21T23:03:09.359-07:002010-09-21T23:03:09.359-07:00I found the last half of Chapter 2 also exposes Ra...I found the last half of Chapter 2 also exposes Ray's disingenuous nature to those who still had an inkling that he has an honest bone in his body...<br /><br />Ray points out that when Japanese engineers in 2007 made a small, humanoid robot that couldn't walk upright, it was because they couldn't mimic the "intricately designed" feet of humans. In reality, a tiny bit of research shows the robot ("CB2") appears to have been made that way, in an attempt to mimic the abilities and learning of a very young child (as well as disturb the very core of any human who looked at it superficially...). Honda's ASIMO has demonstrated that robots can in fact be given the ability to walk (and even run), much less stand upright, since 2005.<br /><br />He then continues working off Chapter 1's redefinition of "scientific" (using what appears to be his favorite method: assigning the literal Latin translation as the definition) as "producing knowledge" so he can conclude that his implication of a creator by labeling everything a "creation" is "producing knowledge of God's existence," and is therefore "scientific." Unfortunately for Ray, the only knowledge produced by such "logic" is that he was extraordinarily misleading by using the title he did for this book.<br /><br />The end of Chapter 2's move into "faith" (which, according to Ray, is just another five-letter-word for "trust"), seemingly ends the "scientific proof of God's existence" tone. I can't seem to expect little else but preaching from here on out...MorallyGodlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086972097786055136noreply@blogger.com