Jump to content


Photo

Ad Hoc Storifying


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 August 2017 - 03:32 AM

Imagine if someone said; "I wasn't at the scene of the crime because I was in a shop which has CCTV, and you can go and see the video of that CCTV and you will see me on it."

 

Equivalent claim; Darwins, he predicted as part of his theory, we would find the transitionals in time.

 

Imagine if we now saw the person was NOT on the CCTV.

 

Imagine now if the police told him that and he responded by saying this;

 

"Oh well, technically speaking did you know that it is possible that if I go into that shop and twist and jump at a certain angle very quickly behind a shelf, then roll over, do the splits whistle dixie, do seven more jumps then roll out of the shop, then I won't be caught on the CCTV camera, and because this is a possibility, you can't say I wasn't in the shop."

 

One can see the tactic. What is it? It's this; "Ahh but you haven't falsified evolution, you have only falsified a version of it, because we now argue that evolution can perform gymnastic manoeuvres in order to avoid being evidenced."

 

So then as an example, the "Hard type" hypothesis was an excuse for why none of the soft-bodied organisms were found fossilised. But such extra hypotheses are only invented to wriggle out of falsification.

 

We now know plenty of soft bodied fossils have been found.

 

It seems to me, after-the-fact conjecture in science, such as Gould's excuses for evolution, should be regarded as extremely logically tenuous attempts to rescue evolution from obvious falsification.

 

Sure, it might be possible to do those gymnastic moves in that shop and not be caught on the CCTV, but the point is, why would anyone believe it? Evolutionists believe evolution happened even though all of the direct evidence is missing, only because they're evolutionist and want evolution to be true, but what reason does that give me to believe it happened? If you give a conjectural explanation of why the transitionals are missing, why shouldn't I reject that and instead say; "no, Darwin said we should find them, and we haven't which is reason enough to dismiss evolution."?

 

[mc]Why? Why shouldn't I go with what the genius scientist Darwin said rather than what some amateur forum bounder says? Are you saying you are up there with Darwin?[/mc]

 

:P

 

(mc = mischief content)

 

Now, count the excuses;

 

 

 

mike the wiz: Imagine we have a theory that the cat ate the carpet. If this theory is true, surely we would find some carpet in the dead cat? Surely it couldn't have digested a whole carpet? So we conduct an autopsy and find no carpet remains. Ergo it is time to invoke a secondary hypothesis. We shall hypothesise that the cat regurgitated the carpet which is why we find no carpet within the cat. Okay then, where did it regurgitate the carpet, since the cat was found dead within the abandoned house? The hypothesis explains that the cat found a way out of the house before it died, to vomit out the carpet. Okay, where did the cat vomit out the carpet and why did it come back to the house? Yet another hypothesis, it went out of the house, vomited out the carpet into a river, so that the carpet was washed down the river so that we would find no carpet. Cat's are very clean which is why it found the energy to do this..........OR, we can go with the evidence that this particular house, just didn't have a carpet.


#2 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 03 August 2017 - 04:12 AM

How long are you going to keep on pretending that we don't have transitional fossils ?

 

Why the implied insistence that we must have a continuous global sedimentary record detailing every stage of evolution everywhere, with it all having being examined by palaentologists even where not exposed and little of it having escaped destruction through time.

 

Its not even as if evolution hinges on having a fossil record, which we are very fortunate to have. There are 6 or 7 confluent lines of evidence from independent fields. Biogeography is one of my favourite ones.



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 August 2017 - 06:22 AM

 

 

Wibble: How long are you going to keep on pretending that we don't have transitional fossils ?

 

I've requested them many times, I have even name the ones you must show, you couldn't show any species of pre-bat, pre-dugong, pre-dragon fly, pre-pine tree, pre-ape, pre-bunny. 

 

What is, "pretend" about this? If a bat evolved from a mammalian quadruped there had to exist transitionals that went from four legs to wings. The same must be said for pterosaurs/pterodactyls.

 

Your argument is also a misrepresentation, my argument specifically isn't that "we don't have transitionals" my argument is that the mathematics provably shows that 99.99999% of them are not there. 

 

If I say to you "there are 95 balls in this bag and 5 tools, and your claim is it is a bag of tools" then you say, "why do you keep pretending we haven't found the tools" then that doesn't mean it's best described as a bag of tools.

 

In the same way the handful of 'candidates' they put forward for the transitionals represent less than 0.5% of the transitional species that would have existed. Secondly, that 0.5% can be debunked easily, and explained away easily, and would even be expected mathematically for in a world of millions of species we expect by chance alone that a small portion would give the appearance of being transitionals even though they aren't.

 

Wibble, please don't argue your argumentum ad nauseam fallacy in this thread, of bleating about the transitionals existing. Repeating that falsehood won't change the fact I have trounced your argument every which way from Sunday.



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 August 2017 - 06:30 AM

 

Wibble: Its not even as if evolution hinges on having a fossil record, which we are very fortunate to have. There are 6 or 7 confluent lines of evidence from independent fields. Biogeography is one of my favourite ones.

 

 

I have 6 or 7 independent lines of evidence for superman existing, but for a claim that size what you actually need is the direct, expected evidence. (Examples that a man can perform like superman, lifting cars, demonstrably flying, etc..)

 

Same with evolution, the transitionals are the key to it all for how did evolution design all of the species we see? Answer; you don't get so much of a hint that it designed anything, all you get is claims of tenuous concordance of the weakest possible, indirect evidence of which you ignore all the holes in.

 

Yes, I have several witnesses say they saw superman, I also have a TV station apparently recording him flying, I have several of his friends telling me what he can do, but what I don't have is any direct evidence superman exists, just like I don't have any direct evidence macro evolution exists. You can show me everything except superman flying, and you can show me everything except evolution. That is what you can never show - an example proving that evolution figured out how to design a bat or a pterosaur or an ape or a butterfly.

 

The "lines of evidence" you bleat about, do not directly evidence that a bat came about, from a mammalian quadruped progenitor. That is the claim and only direct evidence can satisfy it, not indirect coincidences that make for happy just-so stories.



#5 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 03 August 2017 - 07:08 AM

Your argument is also a misrepresentation, my argument specifically isn't that "we don't have transitionals" my argument is that the mathematics provably shows that 99.99999% of them are not there. 

So you agree that we have transitional fossils? There just aren't as much as you'd wish/think/require?



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 August 2017 - 07:53 AM

 

 

Fjuri: So you agree that we have transitional fossils? There just aren't as much as you'd wish/think/require?

 

No, I would say you have a handful of, 'candidates'.

 

Candidates are people or things chosen to represent a certain position. The handful of candidate transitionals they have found, are nominated to be transitionals, but nobody can ever know if they were transitional for sure. However those nominations can change. In the past they said that the mesonychids where the ancestors of whales, now they argue that they are the artiodactyls. So really when evolutionists select fossils of extinct forms and claim they are transitional species, yes, a very small portion might "fit" with that notion. But if those scientists themselves can change their minds about certain species being transitional to whales, then obviously that logically proves that just because they presently argue that some species are transitionals, doesn't mean they really were transitions. 

 

Think about it - if they present a transitional and say "this is certainly a transitional for whales" but a decade later they argue that something else is transitional to whales, then how, "certain" was it, that it was a transitional? :acigar: Just because evolutionists are sure, and have a personal conviction that they have found some transitionals, doesn't mean they really are transitionals from an evolution.

 

So if you said to me, "does anything qualify as a transitional?" to be fair to you, I cannot say that if a species, "fits" as something that may be consistent with being a transitional, that it isn't one. It at least, "fits" but obviously it is a matter of opinion as to whether it was actually a transitional of evolution in reality. I myself don't think it is one, but I can acknowledge there is a dubious handful that may, "fit" or, qualify at least, as being something we might expect from an evolution. But you would expect 99.999% more. A much more parsimonious explanation is that the small handful they find are explainable as simply representing those species which are somewhat similar to each other. For example reptiles and mammals, well for the evolution of reptiles into mammals, how many mammals and reptiles are there to choose from? If a few mammals and a few reptiles are borderline, in the sense they are peculiar, so that one reptile is slightly more mammal like and one mammal is slightly more reptile-like, then obviously this might present the appearance of a false evolution.

 

 

Attached File  mischief.jpg   92.68KB   0 downloads



#7 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 August 2017 - 09:04 AM

There are 6 or 7 confluent lines of evidence from independent fields. Biogeography is one of my favourite ones.

and none of them "proves" macroevolution.

where are these transitionals that you claim exists?
you either have to say "i don't know" or "koonin is a liar".
so, which is it?
BTW, why was PE introduced?
answer: to explain why there aren't any transitionals.

@mike
storifying?
is that something like horrifying?
that is one sweet play on words mike.
and you seem to be good at it.
  • Blitzking likes this

#8 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 03 August 2017 - 09:26 AM

I'm wondering about two things:

 

1) How many fossils have been unearthed in all of paleontological science? I mean the literal numbers of complete or nearly complete fossils representing recognizable species. Every single one. I'm thinking the number will be huge. In my early days of prowling the Kettlemen Hills fossil beds in California you couldn't sit down on the ground without covering a dozen mollusk fossils with your butt. There must be millions of fossils just there alone.

 

2) Of all the fossils that have been found, how many are considered by evolutionists to be actual, provable transitional fossils?

 

What I'm looking for are actual, real numbers. I'd accept a "best guess" as long as it is an educated guess.



#9 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 03 August 2017 - 09:38 AM

Continued ...

 

3) In a perfect world where every single organism becomes fossilized when it dies, and all those fossils could be found, how many iterations of transition would one expect to see in the fossil record of a dramatic change from, say, ground-dwelling mammal to bat?

 

In other words, if one believes in puncuated equilibrium one might say the answer is just one iteration ... meaning one fossil in the record proves the transition.

 

More realistically, according to gradual change over time, that number would be much larger.

 

So, what is a realistic number for the iterations in a major macro evolutionary change from one species to another?



#10 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 August 2017 - 09:48 AM

 
 
Wibble: How long are you going to keep on pretending that we don't have transitional fossils ?

 
I've requested them many times, I have even name the ones you must show, you couldn't show any species of pre-bat, pre-dugong, pre-dragon fly, pre-pine tree, pre-ape, pre-bunny. 
 
What is, "pretend" about this? If a bat evolved from a mammalian quadruped there had to exist transitionals that went from four legs to wings. The same must be said for pterosaurs/pterodactyls.
 
Your argument is also a misrepresentation, my argument specifically isn't that "we don't have transitionals" my argument is that the mathematics provably shows that 99.99999% of them are not there. 
 
If I say to you "there are 95 balls in this bag and 5 tools, and your claim is it is a bag of tools" then you say, "why do you keep pretending we haven't found the tools" then that doesn't mean it's best described as a bag of tools.
 
In the same way the handful of 'candidates' they put forward for the transitionals represent less than 0.5% of the transitional species that would have existed. Secondly, that 0.5% can be debunked easily, and explained away easily, and would even be expected mathematically for in a world of millions of species we expect by chance alone that a small portion would give the appearance of being transitionals even though they aren't.
 
Wibble, please don't argue your argumentum ad nauseam fallacy in this thread, of bleating about the transitionals existing. Repeating that falsehood won't change the fact I have trounced your argument every which way from Sunday.


"What is, "pretend" about this? If a bat evolved from a mammalian quadruped there had to exist transitionals that went from four legs to wings"

Actually, for the myth to have worked as it was supposed to, with each miniscule change having to slowly fixate and establish itself throughout an entire species... We should have rat to bat transitionals 40 feet high covering the globe... But alas... We find..... ZERO...


"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

#11 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 August 2017 - 10:14 AM

2) Of all the fossils that have been found, how many are considered by evolutionists to be actual, provable transitional fossils?

according to some, they are all transitionals.

the gradualist paradigm, which the above alludes to, is one of the biggest misconceptions about evolution.

if and when science does recreate life, it's going to be found that it is virtually identical to todays cells, anything less will fail.

and let's not forget this:
The origin and evolution, if any, of the genetic code represent a major puzzle of modern biology;
numerous hypotheses have been formulated but to date no generally accepted consensus has
been reached.
- Exceptional error minimization in putative primordial genetic codes

#12 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 03 August 2017 - 10:43 AM

Imagine if we now saw the person was NOT on the CCTV.

How much coverage does the CCTV provide? If the camera is situated to see the whole store clearly and we have an unbroken set of footage, we can draw some pretty solid conclusions about who was in the store at that time. If the camera isn't situated to capture everyone who comes in, or the footage we have isn't complete, it's much less conclusive. Which of those situations do you think more closely resembles the fossil record?

If all you know is "A camera exists and has at points in the past produced recordings", is "We do not have CCTV footage of you in the store at that time" enough to conclude "You were definitely not in the store"?
 

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]One can see the tactic. What is it? It's this; "Ahh but you haven't falsified evolution, you have only falsified a version of it, because we now argue that evolution can perform gymnastic manoeuvres in order to avoid being evidenced."

You haven't established that the maneuvers need be particularly gymnastic. It's all still based on your unsupported assumptions about what should be found in the fossil record.
 

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]We now know plenty of soft bodied fossils have been found.

We may have plenty of people on the CCTV. But that alone doesn't mean much as far as what a lack of evidence means. We have to know how likely it is for a person who came in to the store to be seen on camera.

#13 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 August 2017 - 11:07 AM

Dave, on 03 Aug 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

2) Of all the fossils that have been found, how many are considered by evolutionists to be actual, provable transitional fossils?
according to some, they are all transitionals.

the gradualist paradigm, which the above alludes to, is one of the biggest misconceptions about evolution.

if and when science does recreate life, it's going to be found that it is virtually identical to todays cells, anything less will fail.

and let's not forget this:
The origin and evolution, if any, of the genetic code represent a major puzzle of modern biology;
numerous hypotheses have been formulated but to date no generally accepted consensus has
been reached.
- Exceptional error minimization in putative primordial genetic codes

The gap between living "close" ancestrial decendants (so called transitionals) is vast. Consider the human and the apes. Not evem close!

In specie after specie there are no living transitionals! Tranitionals are supposed to be interfertile. They are the alleged bridge that connects one body type to a new body type to transfer newly evolved characteristics. Where are they?

Everything alive is alive as is fully functional as it is! Take a bird or any other creature they shows no signs of evolving into anything else. What is the tiger evolving into? What is the elephant evolving in to? Etc.



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 August 2017 - 11:38 AM

Thanks, "What If".  Superbabafragilisticexpialodoscious! ;)

 

Mike makes an important point, it's not just the missing transitional fossils but the living ones too. They try and get around that by saying, "everything's a transitional" but then that's a weak tautology - the point is we need to see transitions from one anatomically viable state to another. For example where are the animals presently, on their way to becoming bipedal? Where are the animals presently, on their way to developing wings, or developing eyes, etc....the point is, to expect from evolution, only the "completely evolved" stage both in living and dead things, seems to me to be the argument that "evolution should provide all the evidence of miraculous complete intelligent design, but no evidence of evolution".

 

My answer; Lol!

 

And that is the point in this topic; evolution is 99.9% wind when it comes to making conjectural excuses for why the evidence doesn't fit evolution - it spends it's time telling us why the evidence doesn't fit, when it's a better conclusion that evolution doesn't exist. Certainly more parsimonious.



#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 August 2017 - 11:53 AM

Popoi, I've tried to teach you about the relevance of an analogy but I've failed, here is a test for you, it might help you to see where you're going wrong;

 

http://www.funtrivia...89315dbe20.html

 

The only point of the CCTV analogy, is to show how absurd it would be for the police to take such a story seriously. Nobody in a court of law for example, would accept that the suspect was in the shop and wasn't recorded on the CCTV because technically it was possible to perform certain moves so as to escape detection.

 

First of all from the point of view of an innocent person we have to consider the motive; why would an innocent person depend on such a story which only comes posteriori? (AFTER his claim is tested and doesn't fit the evidence, as he claimed he would be on the CCTV so he changed the story after the evidence didn't fit his original story like they now change the evolution story). The other innocent people for example, that were also in the shop at the time and were suspects, were on the camera and purchasing goods, etc, like ordinary people do in shops. Ordinarily innocent people don't cartwheel into a shop and do strange manoeuvres to escape detection for no reason. It isn't ordinary behaviour and it shows the person is only claiming that because they weren't on the CCTV like they claimed they would. 

 

What does this tell us logically? It tells us that only a guilty person would argue this, for the sole reason they were not on the CCTV footage like they should have been.

 

The suspects claim is to the CCTV evidence, as is Darwins claim is to the evidence of the fossils. It's analogous because Darwin claimed the fossils of transitionals would be found, in time, and the suspect claimed he would be found on the CCTV. Now in modern time evolutionists argue excuses for finding the contrary evidence, just as the suspect now argues an excuse for why he wasn't on the CCTV.

 

Evolution started by predicting X, so did the suspect. Now the evidence doesn't fit evolution, and it doesn't fit with the suspect. Now the suspect and evolution both change their story slightly so that they can still get away with duping people.

 

Understand Daniel Son? (so then anything "else" you come up with such as trivial differences between a CCTV recording and evolution theory, are extraneous to the analogy. It would be like complaining that we can't use a chalk-and-cheese analogy to show how two people are different, "because chalk isn't edible".

 

IRRELEVANT. It isn't how the things differ in an analogy to the example, it's the relationship between the things in the example and in the analogy, that count. There is parity and equivalence, logically.

 

Now - why is this so difficult to learn for you? It's not that hard to understand!



#16 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 03 August 2017 - 01:02 PM

The only point of the CCTV analogy, is to show how absurd it would be for the police to take such a story seriously. Nobody in a court of law for example, would accept that the suspect was in the shop and wasn't recorded on the CCTV because technically it was possible to perform certain moves so as to escape detection.

Part of the point was pretty clearly to smuggle in the assumption that the record is reliable enough to be able to draw a conclusion when something is absent from it.

To be in a room at a time but not show up on a well positioned and functional camera requires some weird behavior. Would any weird behavior be required to not show up in a picture that was taken in the store that day? Would it be legitimate for the police to say that because you didn't show up in the picture, you clearly couldn't have been in the store?

What if the police said they knew you weren't in the store because they found shoe impressions in the fresh concrete out front and none of them were yours?

If either of those scenarios aren't legitimate, how do you know the CCTV scenario is a better analogy to the fossil record than they are?

The suspects claim is to the CCTV evidence, as is Darwins claim is to the evidence of the fossils. It's analogous because Darwin claimed the fossils of transitionals would be found, in time, and the suspect claimed he would be found on the CCTV. Now in modern time evolutionists argue excuses for finding the contrary evidence, just as the suspect now argues an excuse for why he wasn't on the CCTV.

I'm not aware of any such claim by Darwin. Can you provide a source?

The evidence isn't contrary unless you factor in additional assumptions about the fossil record. What fossils we do have fit just fine with evolution.
You assert there should be more fossils. An incomplete fossil record is indeed contrary to at least one of "evolution happened" and "evolution would produce way more fossils than we find", but there doesn't seem to be any reason to accept that assertion.

Now - why is this so difficult to learn for you?

It's because you're wrong and you assume the problem is that other people don't understand you instead of that you're wrong.

#17 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 August 2017 - 01:04 PM

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]Thanks, "What If".

no problem.

in all honesty though, there is a certain amount of "evolution" taking place.
OTOH, i haven't seen any evidence that body plans arrived here by a tree like pattern.

also, i now have it from 2 seperate sources that life arrived here complex.
there is no such thing as "a simple cell that evolved complexity".
correction, science is not in consensus on how complexity arises in the cell.
just remember that the next time someone starts with the "random mutation/ natural selection" conjecture.

#18 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 03 August 2017 - 03:26 PM

where are these transitionals that you claim exists?
you either have to say "i don't know" or "koonin is a liar".
so, which is it?
BTW, why was PE introduced?
answer: to explain why there aren't any transitionals.


:get_a_clue:



#19 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 03 August 2017 - 05:17 PM

Ad hoc explanations are necessary in natural history which is necessarily a narrative rich in specifics and unpredictable detail (its models explain general patterns and mechanisms). The hypotheses of creation science - eg vapour canopies, differential escape etc - are ad hoc to bible stories.

#20 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 August 2017 - 06:51 PM

Ad hoc explanations are necessary in natural history which is necessarily a narrative rich in specifics and unpredictable detail (its models explain general patterns and mechanisms). The hypotheses of creation science - eg vapour canopies, differential escape etc - are ad hoc to bible stories.

 

Who needs "Ad Hoc Stories" when you can just take care of any possible contingencies BEFOREHAND.... No more problems.. And it is also Predicted!! :burp:
 

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING
    BY JAMES THINNSEN AKA BLITZKING
 

"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

 

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

 

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

 

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

 

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

 

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

 

So "Evolution" happens....

 

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

 

The predictive power of "evil delusion" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

 

"It’s impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species."
Richard Goldschmidt (Inventor of the "Hopeful Monsters" Ad Hoc

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

   
 
cleardot.gif





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users