Thank god (heh:), the obvious has been consigned to the rubbish bin of understanding, and we now prefer evidence, experimentation, and the unobvious, to the vacuous, empty, ‘obvious’.
What is the problem with this way of thinking?
He just assumes this “obvious” thing too will be relegated to the dustbin of understanding. That is what he believes – which is great, but it is nothing more than opinion/belief/worldview deduction, etc. right now.
It is just as possible that the Materialist view of OoL will be relegated to the dustbin of understanding.
And get this!
He thinks that since we were able to learn how earthquakes work that we can also learn how life evolved. He equates the two things!
Now, again, anyone see any problems with this claim?
They are incomparable! One is vastly more complicated than the space station while the other is a simple deduction of natural law and forces at work in nature that can be studied, tested, and verified. If they could verify OoL in the same way, no one would have any problem with their claim, but they can’t. And, given the complexity of the problem I think it is likely they might never be able to do so.
But this is the great hope of the Materialist – that one day they can find a way to show that life could evolved all by itself. That’s their great hope and desire and this hope and desire clouds their judgment when it comes to interpreting the data.
For them, NOTHING is too difficult for evolution or blind random natural processes!
NOTHING! Complexity be damned!
So it really doesn’t matter what anyone finds in future. It doesn’t matter how complex the thing might be. That makes no difference.
Since they do not believe in God, anything & everything that exists, even if can’t be explained, is still thought to have come into existence by pure random natural processes – including their own thoughts (Now there’s a thought to chew on for a while! – heh:) Anyway, that is what they believe.
Well, as is obvious from this post, we all have beliefs that cannot be shown to be valid by science. Some will choose to believe in natural miracles of chance (In this case, Chance is science.) that so far are impossible to explain.
Others though who are not bound by the Materialist worldview, might choose a different interpretation of the same data. They may choose to see life as possible evidence of a supernatural Creator.
Neither side can prove their own beliefs are right, but both sides feel they have good reason/evidence on which to base their beliefs.
So be it. Each to his own. For me, I do not think it is rational or logical to compare thunder or earthquakes with life itself, but I too have a bias. Of course, I have the added benefit of experiencing a relationship with God that also influences me to the design side of things. I’m firmly with Barry here and I think his OP makes a whole lot of sense.
RVB8 is free to believe whatever he wants to believe or thinks is true. NO one can make up his mind for him. He has to trust his own evolving thought processes to lead him to the right conclusion – as we all do.
After all, according to his worldview, his brain evolved in a way to lead him to believe in random natural processes as the answer to the problem of OoL and my brain evolved in a way to lead me to believe in God. So be it! There is nothing I can do about it! We are both slaves to the processes of nature that formed our brains and continue to form our thoughts so ultimately, we can’t help what we think/believe.>>