OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,11:06) | | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21) | | Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12) | | but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution. |
The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?
If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"? |
Okay well they could just answer well whatever the number is, the one that you got isn't enough, as the super scientist dr. Behe has clearly shown. Gain of function is just to rare to justify evolution in the time frame that we have.
If you have a better number with a wider study prove it.
Playing devils advocate
Marty |
What would be even better is to ask them for the number that their notion PREDICT. Then you just patiently wait for the research to be done (it won't be done by creationists, that's for sure, which is another thing to tweak their noses about).
Remind them that a theory must not only explain why things are the way that they are, but it must predict future results. For example, the prediction made by Shubin about where he could find a fossil that was transitional between fish and amphibians.
So, remind them that this is an opportunity to use their notions to make a prediction based on those notions. Then, in the future, we can actually see which notion is correct.
I'll give you a thousand to one odds, that they won't take you up on the offer. Continue to remind them that this is how real science is done and that, very simply, are not doing science.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
