There is only two ways for life to begin. It is either by
blind luck, or it is by creation.
YASCFD ("Yet Another Stupid Creationist
False Dichotomy"), just like the stupid, false, and deliberately-designed-to-deceive
Two Model Approach that is the foundation for that deliberately crafted deception, "creation science."
From that link:
quote:
A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many.
Creationists through their "creation science" and
Two Model Approach deliberately use false dichotomies in order to deceive, as you have done here.
You see, you left out the other ways for life to have begun, like
natural processes,
which are not "blind luck":
When water is formed by the burning of hydrogen and oxygen, is that "blind luck"? Hell no!
When particles in water settle out with the larger heavier particles on the bottom of the sediment and the finer particles on top, is that "blind luck"? Hell no!
When any chemical reaction or physical process occurs, is that "blind luck"? Hell no!
You left out the third way for life to have begun. And the fourth way, the fifth way, etc up to and including the n'th way. By excluding all those other ways from consideration, you chose to try to deceive us.
Before you try to claim a broad interpretation for "creation", please consult your dogma, the
Two Model Approach (TMA), whose "creation model" is
explicitly restricted to a YEC interpretation. Since the TMA divides origins into "two mutually exclusive models", it consigns to its "atheistic" "evolution model" all explanations that are not part of YEC, including (according to Dr. Henry Morris) "much of the world's religions, ancient and modern". That makes most of the supernatural explanations "atheistic evolution", about 288,000 in number,
along with non-YEC Christian teachings. Congrats, you have declared the vast majority of Christians to be atheists, but then what else could we expect from a "true Christian".
Obviously, your
Two Model Approach and the rest of your false dichotomies are nothing but a crock of BS.
Now, there is such a thing as a true dichotomy, but
all the possible options must be presented and be testable so that all can be eliminated except for one. Just remember that for that one remaining option to be true through this method,
absolutely ALL the possible options must be known.
Your "blind luck/creation" options list fails because there are so many other options possible -- I only had to give a third one to prove that.
Still, the most common uses (eg, math's
Proof by contradiction) is to prove something by trying to prove its exact opposite, thus by finding that the exact opposite is false you prove the proposed thing to be true.
But they must be exact opposites with no possibility of a third outcome.
The best correction I can think of for your false dichotomy would be "natural vs supernatural", such that you could try to argue for the origin of life being either through natural or supernatural means. However, even there we can see at least one more option, that is was through a combination of natural
and supernatural processes. And even if we find that life originated purely through natural processes, an
actual believer in Creation (unlike you fake believers) would recognized that their Creator would have created those natural processes.
Thus even abiogenesis through natural processes would not disprove that Creator -- indeed, science has nothing to say on the matter and most certainly does not try to "disprove God", rather just tries to learn how everything in the universe works.
Or do you believe that if natural processes are found to have done it, then that disproves your god? Seriously, do you really think that Nature disproves God? That belief comes right out of
God of the Gaps thinking.
You mention that Darwin has contributed much to the
scientific community.
No, he has not. A belief in evolution contributes nothing
to science.
What the hell is "a belief in evolution" supposed to have to do with anything?
Or even mean? You're talking total nonsense!
OTOH, an
understanding of evolution does indeed contribute much to science. Indeed, except through an
understanding of evolution, all the disparate little facts, factoids, and observations in biology make no sense. I've related Dr. Eugenie Scott's story of biology seniors with no training in evolution taking her physical anthropology class which, unlike their biology classes, did teach about evolution and she would watch as one by one they would suddenly start to understand what their biology classes had tried to teach them.
Darwin has indeed contributed much to the scientific community. You should try to learn something about it.
Darwinianism is the evolutionary science (it isn't really a
science) of the gaps.
What the hell is
that supposed to be? Do you even know, or are you just mindlessly repeating a bit of creationist nonsense that you thought sounded cute?
Since none of your creationists will tell us what it's supposed to be (so what else is new?), I have to offer what I think it might be. If you wish to excoriate me for guess wrong, then you must give us the correct definition.
It appears to be an attempt at creating a false equivalence with your practice of "God of the Gaps". In "God of the Gaps", you use gaps in human knowledge as "proof" of "God"; basically, "goddidit" becomes an excuse for your ignorance. Resorting to "goddidit" not only puts an end to any and all further attempts to solve that mystery (and hence perpetuating your ignorance) but it also gives you justification for attacking anyone who does continue to try to solve that mystery on the grounds that "You're trying to disprove God!"
For example, in J. Richard Wakefield's article about his research into Robert Gentry's radiohalos in "Genesis rock" (actually in an igneous intrusion within metamorphic rock, so far from "Genesis rock"; turned out that Gentry didn't know what he was looking at), "Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" (Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32), Wakefield concluded with:
quote:
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
So creationists' "Science of the Gaps" appears to be an accusation that scientists confronted with not knowing the answer "stubbornly refuse to accept that God is the obvious answer" and insist that there must be a natural explanation instead of resorting to "goddidit".
But what you criticize as a fault is actually a virtue. By continuing to seek an answer, we still have a chance to find the answer, and to
decrease our ignorance and learn something new. If instead we were to do as you demand of us and resort to your "God of the Gaps", then we will remain in the perpetual darkness of ignorance.
This example is from Sherlock Holmes (
The Hound of the Baskervilles):
quote:
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
So just what the hell are you talking about?
... (remember that Darwin is the father of the
"jelly-like substance-I get a good laugh out of this) ...
I bet that you also laughed all through
Titanic at those idiot passengers who took a boat instead of a jet airliner.
What did you just say? That jet airliners didn't exist back then? Well, when Darwin had written that (if indeed that was the case) all anyone could see in a cell's cytoplasm was a lack of any distinct features.
Staining microscope specimens dates from the late 1800's, decades after Darwin would have written that.
So just what is it about that questionable quote that you find so funny? Or are you still nothing but a fucking idiot?
™ Version 4.2
