quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Where do they go?
Many creationists (and mutationalists) are ‘vexed’ by arguments of psuedo-science (i.e., ‘mutationalism’, vain genealogies, doting questions, and ‘debating’, per se). Consider:
I continue to debate to the point that it confirms a rational ‘hope’ of the excellency of the universe. That there are both ‘cursed’ and ‘redemptive’ data observations seem fact enough for most unbiased ‘scientists’. Focusing too much on the ‘cursed’ observations, ‘pointlessness’, ‘randomness’, etc., is neither logical nor healthy (methinks).
Generalizing ‘mutant’ life forms beyond what is presently observed and inferred is a ‘dead-end’ debate for creationists and (methinks) scientists of all disciplines. The creationist concludes it is suspiciously delusional to infer gross complex changes via the gross ‘mutant’ mechanism. The ‘non-theistic’ creationist will thus abandon such debate.
Doting questions are often passed over by creationists entirely: Like, Who did Cain marry?, Why are creationists computer hackers?, Why did God make all things ‘cursed’?, etc., when clearly such questions cause strife, confusion, etc., when ‘toyed’ with excessively.
Engaging too much in some debate, as I have with Taz, Quetzel, and Darwin_T, has also been sore vexing for me. These 3 hard-line mutationalists will beguile your thoughts till you wonder if there is a forest for all the trees. That is, you almost believe that their ‘mutational’ microscopic models are actually relevant (regarding origins of species), when in fact, their advances of everything that is ‘already’ extraordinarily complex and ‘excellent’. This is way beyond their scope, despite the ‘proven’ scientists that they are.
Many a creationist has ‘other’ agendas (praying, groaning, singing, worshiping the creator, maturing, etc.)
As for me, I hope to cohere to discuss aspects of origins with you all, in a scientific manner, while not compromising the logic and the nature of the ID model. I know I shall never ‘convert’ any here (and vice versa).