blipey
Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006
|
Then would the war-like Blipey, like himself,
Assume the Port of Mars and at his heels,
Leashed in like hounds, would DaveTard, Dumb, and Ski
Crouch for employment.
Ah the good times when:
1. bornagain77 agreed with me
2. Arguing the finer points of ID legal maters
3. And getting DaveTard to agree with me AND make a prediction! Which I'll reproduce here before it goes away:
| Quote |
7
O'Leary
01/20/2008
8:16 pm
Common descent can be true without a complete series of transitional fossils. Why not?
8
Dog_of_War
01/20/2008
8:53 pm
And common descent can also be true if the sequence never existed, as well. As was mentioned above, the rapid change of appearance between parent and child makes fossils a terrible way to study common descent, even if it were true. The point is that ID presents a way more viable avenue of research than trying to study an ambiguous at best fossil record.
9
SCheesman
01/20/2008
9:07 pm
Dog_of_War: “The point is that ID presents a way more viable avenue of research than trying to study an ambiguous at best fossil record.”
In fact, it would be no disadvantage to ID to posit that the fossil record is, in fact, an excellent, accurate and mostly complete record of evolution on earth; it is not the fossil record that is ambiguous or incomplete, but our own understanding of the proecesses which led to its creation.
10
Dog_of_War
01/20/2008
9:25 pm
@ SCheesman:
That is a great point. In fact, this is exactly the kind of positive prediction that ID can make which the Darwinists are always poo-poo-ing. That’s what happens when a group is so entrenched in their own righteousness–they fail to see the accomplishments brought about by other avenues of research.
11
DaveScot
01/20/2008
11:20 pm
dog_of_war
Sure. Let’s just turn Denyse’s fossil prediction into a positive one. She predicts that the fossil record is essentially complete and well explored. What you see is what you get.
12
ari-freedom
01/21/2008
9:56 am
2 reasons to expect a complete record:
1) Paleontologists are evolutionists and there is great selection bias. They are only interested in finding transitionals to the point where we have to catch them before they claim to find a missing link on a grilled cheese sandwich.
2) Pareto principle. 20% of the effort usually produce 80% of the results and there was a lot of effort.
So we will probably not find millions of transitionals as required by Darwinism as they probably never existed in the first place.
13
Dog_of_War
01/21/2008
10:35 am
So we will probably not find millions of transitionals as required by Darwinism as they probably never existed in the first place.
Right, a theory that requires an impossible find can’t be said to be a real scientific theory in any case. This falls squarely into the camp of untestable theories–and the Darwinists are claiming that you just fill in the gaps between the fossils they’ve found. Well, you can always say “fill in the gaps”, what is needed is a theory that doesn’t rely on something as murky as the fossil record–ID can be that theory.
|
Good times, huh, DaveTard. Well, until you answer the phone again....
--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin
|
