The premise of this argument is flawed. Basically Gilbo, unless we can directly test/witness large-scale evolution through experiments, its not a theory, its just speculation.
I'm glad you admit this... So I guess all the claims of "inference" are false then since an inference requires evidence in order to infer from. If evolution is speculation then it IS assumptions which is what I stated previously.
The problem arises because the earth and life actually are billions of years old Gilbo, and we must infer what has happened in the past.
"billions of years old"... really... I'd love to see the experiments that demonstrate that, (actual experiments... NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED).
Yet you admitted its speculation?.... How can you infer from a speculation? Or are you using the word infer to cover-up the fact that you are ASSUMING...
I'd love to see the premises you are "inferring" from and how they relate to the concept of evolution and common descent....
Thankfully, our reality is apparently objective, that is, it doesn't seem to run "alternative programs" at the same time, meaning we can develop scientific explanations for things.
Funny that... Its the reason why science was born from belief in God, the belief that the universe is ordered under God's providence..... I always find it amusing how many people don't know science's theistic beginnings.... Go check it out if you don't believe me.
Other than the fact that this tenous argument would also apply to any alternative to evolution, (HOW do you have the balls to ignore this),
Why do you claim I ignore this? Perhaps provide evidence for this assertion... Or were you using this to dodge the fact that evolution fails to this argument...
Creationists readily admit that their stance goes beyond the bounds of science... Its the evolutionists who stubbornly refuse to accept that their position does too... So who are the level-headed reasonable ones then? Those who admit to the flaws of their position, or the ones who defiantly claim that their position is "scientific" or "a fact" despite all evidence to the contrary?
we have seen as much evolution as we would reasonably expect to see, including the evolution of new species.
You've made this claim before I and I subsequently ask you for evidence... To which you ignore my call for evidence... Honestly why even post this junk of a claim, when you were unable to support it before?
Do you think if you claim something enough it suddenly becomes true by default?
I formally ask you to provide the examples of an organism being observed to "evolve" into another organism... A cat to a horse would be good, or a dog to a whale... Or a fish to a reptile... Either of these would be great
We see, in the lab and field:
Natural selection (AND? You assume natural selection is the cause of large-scale change... The existence of X doesn't mean X was the cause of something)
Genetic drift (As I explained to you before, this LIMITS the variety of traits... Hence it works against evolution...)
Adaptation (You ASSUME that this leads to large-scale structural changes over time, yet what we observe is oscilating change which leads to no net change over time- Darwin's finches, animal breeds)
There may also be longer-term evolutionary mechanisms we cannot detect in a short time frame, but that is basically it.
Argument to the future much?... Wishful thinking isn't science....
In this context, postulated = inferred.
Wrong.. So wrong...
Postulating means assumed... By definition. You don't get to redefine words...
verb (used with object), postulated, postulating.
[v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt]
to ask, demand, or claim.
to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.
to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.
Mathematics, Logic. to assume as a postulate.
I'm always amazed at how often atheists wish to redefine words as it suits their arguments or claims.
People assuming transitions through the ages isn't a good foundation for science to operate... I'd love to see the evidence by which you claim that this was "inferred"...
Where was the evidence that evolution was a common idea before Darwin since that is what you claimed... I'd like to see your evidence for such, or was this an attempt to make evolution seem more authoritative than what it is...
Single cell life -> marine life -> fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> birds & mammals over many, many geologic layers. And, of course, humans at the very, very top of the fossil / geologic record.
It seems you're ignoring all the fossils that are found "out of place" (this is assuming there is a proper place where they should be found...)
And you believe this is a trend because?... On what basis can you claim this is a trend?
Would you admit that the occurrence of the Coelacanth which went missing for "millions of years" worth of layers demonstrates that the non-presence of a particular organism in a particular layer doesn't mean the organism didn't exist then.... Since that is what happened to the Coelacanth...
IF that is the case (which it is) then how in the world can you assume that your "trend" is reliable?
Darwin predicted that many of the gaps in the fossil record (which again people were well aware of because they were already identifying key trends within the record). And some have and some haven't.
Which gaps have been filled?... Is there a progressive "line of transition" demonstrating the changes from one organism to the other?... Since that is what you need to demonstrate, NOT providing 2 or 3 independent organisms and then ASSUME that one "evolved" to another...
I don't believe Darwin thought his theory was absolute fact, gilbo; in fact, he outlined several possible future discoveries that could potentially falsify the theory. So, I don't think he was "assuming" it; but, I do think he felt that the observable evidence supported his theory making it a viable and logical inference based on the evidence at hand.
What evidence?.... I know you claim Darwin had evidence, but what evidence did he have to make the claims he did.... This is what this thread is about...
Are Darwin's claims justified under the "evidence" he had, considering he had no experimental evidence then it would be correct to state that his "theory" was NOT a scientific theory... Rather it is merely his theory as per the following definition.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Remember a scientific theory REQUIRES supported hypotheses, if Darwin did no experiments then he has no supported hypotheses to base his "theory" on... Hence it isn't scientific.
Isn't that what you do with physical evidence, e.g., you try to explain that evidence? Now, if the evidence is such that different people derive completely different conclusions from the evidence, then you would probably won't be able to develop and very solid or convincing theory. However, in cases where the evidence is consistent across multiple lines of inquiry, then a strong theory with some statistical significance is more likely.
You know full well what I mean, don't act dumb. If Darwin had no experiments then his "science" was like pre-scientific method "science" where one observes something and then construes an "explanation" which he / she feels is the most logical, (this is opinion-based by the way).
In modern science rather than using ones opinions to determine the validity of an idea, you do this with EXPERIMENTS... The fact that you admit that Darwin performed ZERO experiments means he had no to very little evidence for his "theory" and in fact it means that he was using his OPINIONS to determine what was correct and logical... This was my point, which you attempted to ignore.
I'd like to hear what his evidence was since to claim that X organism changes over time to Y organism is a pretty incredible claim which would require, as Hitchens would demand, incredible evidence.... Or was this merely his idea that he thought of off the top of his head...
No different?... So you think someone looking at something and then coming up with any kind of explanation and deeming it correct is compatible with modern science?... Honestly?...
THIS is why I get so frustrated with evolutionists and how their beliefs now bastardize science, opinions and what you deem "logical" has no place in science... Only experiments and evidence gleaned from experiments, that is it... Why is it only the Creationists who stand up for the scientific method? Ironic isn't it...
How would you suggest we investigate the past and all the evidence left behind by the past?
First I'd start by not calling it science... Since it cannot abide by the scientific method, you cannot perform an experiment on the past can you?... Then it isn't science... End of story.
I think you are conflating inference and assumption.
Nope, you're attempting to claim that your and Darwin's assumptions are somehow inference.
Evolution was originally logically inferred from the record of life contained in the rocks starting with the very oldest rocks containing life (only very simple life and nothing else); to the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian where life began to diversify; to the first jawless fish to the first jawed fish; to the Carboniferous with first amphibians followed by the first amniotes (including the first synapsids); to the Mesozoic Era and the rise of the dinosaurs; to the Cenozioc Era and the rise of the mammals; and finally to the very most recent layers that contain modern mammals including humans.
Looking at that, gilbo, I don't see how you can't at least infer (not assume) the possibility that life went through various transitions throughout the eons and eventually made it to where we are today. Now, understand, that does NOT make it fact; but it is clearly a possibility based on a logical inference from the evidence.
You're ignoring the out-of-place fossils.
You are assuming that the placement of fossils actually relates to the age they lived, (doesn't work for the Coelacanth)
How can you "infer" transitions from the placement of fossils? If I place similar objects next to each other, can I "infer" that one "evolved" from another?.... What is the logical link here?
Even after all that, you do realise that your "inference" is a hypothesis to be tested via experimentation?... (that is if you want evolution to be deemed science).