Re: West Virginia creationism

jillery wrote:

On Fri, 10 May 2024 14:43:42 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Thu, 9 May 2024 18:51:52 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

  <snip for focus>
 

There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature.  Darwin was a
Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the
death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10.  This naturally
caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against
religion and God whom he blamed. One could certainly sympathize with him
on the loss of his daughter.

>
What's your explanation for why Annie had to die?  Is it better than
my explanation? (which is that there is no reason she died -- nothing
in the universe is out there to care whether she lived, suffered, or
died)
>

Everyone dies, including you and me. Some much older and others  much
younger. Annie didn't have to die, but she was exposed the the weather
or a disease which caused her death.

>
But why would God allow that?  I consider this to be positive evidence
in favor of atheism.
>

And so did Darwin. Why would you think that the designer should be an on
scene manager constantly controlling everything minute by minute. The
fact is, it did not, instead it chose to permit reproduction by
organisms themselves rather than create each species individualy. It
designed the genetic code and the information needed, as well a multiple
edit and repair machines to correct copy errors and mutations in the
DNA. It infused almost all of the first complex modern complex animal
phyla during the Cambrian. It created a universe beginning with then big
bang, a universe of natural order, patterns and logic, evidenced by the
fact that mathematics is able to describe this universe it's physical
laws, constants many of the actions we observe Indeed Math cam explain
what is observed. This is not a condition of blind, aimless mindless
random activities.

  To the contrary, the above sounds to me exactly like a condition of
blind, aimless, mindless random activities *which reproduce*.  You
keep leaving out that part.  Why is that?

 >
Why would such a universe know or care about reproduction? There is _no_ reason!

 OTOH to purposely design obsolescence aka death into life sounds to
mel like the opposite of intelligent design.  An intelligent designer
would have no need for such correcting processes.  Instead it would
create the "perfect" design from jump.
 

Maybe, it did, but in view of the extreme long and amount of strings of information, copy errors, mistakes omissions etc are hugely likely to occur, this is undesirable. Therefore, there are several
edit and repair systems designed within the information code. However, even these repair systems
have developed errors.

 

I personally think there is something terribly wrong with the
devaluation of human life caused by accepting evolution. We descended
from common ancestors along with chimps, gorillas, monkeys horses, swine and dogs. Consequently, we are just animals same as other animals. So,
as animals in every respect we are of no more worth or value than any
other animal. So, we kill and eat other animals so, from a moral
standpoint, why is this more acceptable? The question was asked in a
YouTube site of young college people, "If you saw a man and your dog,
that you loved, drowning you could only save one which would you save"?
As I recall the everyone except a professor said they would save their
dog. This means they would let the man die, his life is of no more value
than a dog's life. This I'm afraid is where evolution is leading the
human race.

<
No comment! I'm not surprised.

  You continue to conflate the way things are, with the way you would
like things to be.  Why is that?
 

I would like this to be??! Nonsense, You must have an extreme low opinion of me to think this. This is an objection I have regarding evolution, which I think fosters such heartless and selfish behabvior. I saw this  on a YouTube video. I'm going to try to relocate it.

 

True, but science advances, not by going along following the same path
ways that have been explored. But by taking new pathways.

>

>

>

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge