The theory of evolution is different than the different hypotheses of abiogenesis.
No, actually they are both nothing more than hypotheses (especially if you are attempting to argue Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroÃ¢â‚¬Â). But, to further dismantle you argument on that point, materialistic needs an agreement like Ã¢â‚¬ËœabiogenesisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ as its origins, and without its origins materialistic evolution fails. Therefore, if you posit Ã¢â‚¬ËœabiogenesisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ in any way it (abiogenesis) is not different, nor is it separate, from evolution. Why? Because it begs the question Ã¢â‚¬Å“from what did evolution evolve?Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Or, to put it more succinctly Ã¢â‚¬Å“from what did the first molecule come, in order for it to replicate?Ã¢â‚¬Â. And remember, unless you have empirical evidence, you are making a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementÃ¢â‚¬Â!
What are these lines of logic?
First of all the Laws of Logic themselves cannot be explained using the atheistic materialistic explanations. Why, because they, themselves are Ã¢â‚¬ËœmetaphysicalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢! Further, man did not invent them, he discovered them. Additional lines of logic would be First Principles (basically the same as above), The Teleological Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument, First Principles, The Transcendental Argument (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦)
It is not an ad hominem because I have not attacked any person in order to say that their arguments are false.
No, it IS an ad hominem by inference, because you called the argument idiotic, so it follows that anyone who uses said argument is idiotic as well. Therefore you ARE attacking the person(s), and it will be exposed as such.
Use of words without substantiation has consequences that drape all over them like moldy clothing. The stench follows the argument. So, if you are going to attempt fallacious arguments (name calling, prevarication, quibbling, baseless accusations) you will receive a warning. But that might be all you receive. You may want to revisit the forum rules (and addendums/attachments).
Another point is that evolution is evidence-based, not faith-based and so is a scientific theory and not a religion or a mythology.
If you are going to attempt to argue Ã¢â‚¬ËœMacroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ you are arguing from a faith based stance. If you are going to attempt to argue Ã¢â‚¬â„¢microÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ you may as well say Ã¢â‚¬Å“adaptation within a kind/speciesÃ¢â‚¬Â because that is all you are saying.
Actually you don't need that to prove the theory of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that makes predictions about the natural world.
If you are going to attempt to argue Ã¢â‚¬ËœMacroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ you are arguing from a faith based stance, not science. If you are going to attempt to argue Ã¢â‚¬â„¢microÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ you may as well say Ã¢â‚¬Å“adaptation within a kind/speciesÃ¢â‚¬Â because that is all you are saying.
What you need for evidence is to first find specific predictions evolution makes, and then find subsequent discoveries that directly prove individual prediction. Evolution does not need to be proven 100% without a doubt like a mathematical theorem in order to be considered a very very strong scientific theory.
The problem is, the exact same evidence you are going to attempt to use for evolution can be viewed as creation evidence; unless you are going to attempt to argue Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolution of the gapsÃ¢â‚¬Â (or punctuated equilibrium). And, as of yet, you have failed to provide any evidence for evolution here.
Actually atheism is at its core the lack of believe in any creator or mythology. This requires much less faith then the belief in these.
Actually, atheism attempts to posit the Ã¢â‚¬ËœNo GodÃ¢â‚¬Â argument, but atheists cannot even mount a good defense for the foundations of atheism, or the origins of materialistic life, the cosmos (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) and therefore the atheist is living vicariously through theistic thought (the metaphysical)and attempting to deny it the whole time. Further, atheism itself is Ã¢â‚¬Å“Self-stultifyingÃ¢â‚¬Â in that it fails to meet its own standard.
Because despite all their bluster, the atheist cannot explain the metaphysical form a materialist standpoint.
Because the atheist cannot even prove that atheism is anything more than a philosophy, therefore the atheist must Ã¢â‚¬Å“presupposeÃ¢â‚¬Â their world view.
I can tell attention to detail is your strong suit. I made my profile months ago and was not active until now and my beliefs have changed since then. I have updated my profile. Thanks for the reminder.