Otangelo
Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015
|
| Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 15 2015,20:23) | |
| Quote | | Ah, here it comes. The demand for INFINITE DETAIL while providing exactly ZERO of his own. |
Well, isnt that a prediction of the ToE, that these transitional fossils should be encountered ? If they were not, why do proponents of evolution not change their mind ? maybe, because their position is not scientific, but rather religious after all ? What evidence would you accept that the ToE is false ? A cambrian rabbit ?
Michael Denton stated:
“It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today
anthropologist Edmund Ronald Leach stated:
“ Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so
One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted,
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
| Quote |
Fossilization is extremely rare and gets even more rare the farther back in time you go. Why do you IDiots think we should have a complete fossil record for events and creatures that existed around a billion years ago? |
Does the ToE also predict that we should find non-permineralized fossils, and collagen, and proteins preserved in fossils ? And carbon through C14 dating methods ? And if we find such things, is it not obvious and indicative that the dating methods are all bollocks, and fossils are rather young ?? Does that evidence not add to all the other, and provide a BIG blow to deep time nonsense assertions ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1767-c....e-young
| Quote | | The usual argument from personal incredulity. "Gee, this is so complex I can't imagine how it evolved, therefore it must be designed". Before you bore us even more do you have anything not based on your own ignorance or personal incredulity? Any positive evidence for ID at all? |
Argument from incredulity
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1724-a....ty#2738
Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far. So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.
It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.
When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.
Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points.
This kind of arguments are frequent :
how can a perfect deity create such a messed up world? (translation: it is inconceivable that a perfect deity could create such a messed up world, therefore, since evolution is a theory of messed-up, random natural forces and actions, it must be true)
how can (a certain part of a living organism, e.g., the human eye) be designed when it has this mistake or that problem? (translation: it is inconceivable that an intelligent divine designer could create that supposedly malfunctioning part of the living organism; therefore it must have been formed through random, unintelligent, natural forces, i.e. evolution)
All of these arguments could be accurately classed as arguments of incredulity. If no reason is given, any argument from incredulity is weak.
When a person accuses opposing arguments of
incredulity when they are actually guilty of it themselves, (disbelieving and
being skeptical of what is true and repeatedly proven) and they make attempts
to evade the current evidence and observation instead of dealing with alleged
evidence by refuting it and acknowledging that it exists.
IOW, my argument is not in disbelieving what is objectively factual, it is
actually your argument that is doing this in the face of what we DO observe.
| Quote | | Any positive evidence for ID at all? |
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1983-i....norance
We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence. We are not ignorant of how information arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can create informational sequences and systems. To quote Quastler again, "The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity."2 Experience teaches that whenever large amounts of specified complexity or information are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence—intelligent design—played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer—based on our knowledge of
established cause-and-effect relationships—that an intelligent cause operated in the past
to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life.
For this reason, the design inference defended here does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge. To establish an explanation as best, a historical scientist must cite positive evidence for the causal adequacy of a proposed cause. Indeed, unlike an argument from ignorance, an inference to the best explanation does not assert the adequacy of one causal explanation merely on the basis of the inadequacy of some other causal explanation. Instead, it asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and
based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.
|
