Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Jose Fly]

Sure at this point the statement “ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” is just an empty assertion, I am willing to support my assertion with objective evidence against the naturalistic hypothesis of your preference, just let me know which is that naturalistic hypothesis and I will be happy to support my assertion of why I think ID is a better explanation.,

That's not how it works. What you're doing is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

"A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side."​

If you believe ID creationism provides an explanation for the FT of the universe, then the first thing you need to do is tell everyone what that explanation is. Can you do that, or are you just dodging having to support your own position?

 

[gnostic]

Sure at this point the statement “ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” is just an empty assertion, I am willing to support my assertion with objective evidence against the naturalistic hypothesis of your preference, just let me know which is that naturalistic hypothesis and I will be happy to support my assertion of why I think ID is a better explanation.,

To date, no one have scientific evidence that back up Intelligent Design.

Even Michael Behe couldn’t back up his Irreducible Complexity with evidence, and admitted during his cross examination in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, he has no evidence:

Behe like every other ID adherents never used objective evidence. Instead they used semantic games, and using analogies with faulty logic, none of which are considered “evidence”.

So you think you can do one better than them, including Behe?

Then, by all means, present your evidence.

If you are going to just present another analogy, then you have already lost.

 

[leroy]

That's not how it works. What you're doing is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

"A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side."​

If you believe ID creationism provides an explanation for the FT of the universe, then the first thing you need to do is tell everyone what that explanation is. Can you do that, or are you just dodging having to support your own position?

There are many possible explanations for the FT of the universe ( ID, cosmic darwinism, multiverse, anthropic principle, chance, the universe is not FT etc)

Of all the pool of alternatives I would suggest that ID is the best option based on the data that we have today...... I am assuming that you disagree and that you believe that there is a better alternative, so what is that alternative and why do you think is better than ID?

Quite honestly I think I am asking a very reasonable question, I mean why wouldn't you respond to it?

 

[Jose Fly]

There are many possible explanations for the FT of the universe ( ID, cosmic darwinism, multiverse, anthropic principle, chance, the universe is not FT etc)

Of all the pool of alternatives I would suggest that ID is the best option based on the data that we have today

And ID's explanation is..............?

I am assuming that you disagree and that you believe that there is a better alternative, so what is that alternative and why do you think is better than ID?

Quite honestly I think I am asking a very reasonable question, I mean why wouldn't you respond to it?

Because you're doing everything you can to avoid actually saying what "ID's explanation" is. Until you do that, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate it, or compare it to anything else.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure at this point the statement “ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” is just an empty assertion, I am willing to support my assertion with objective evidence against the naturalistic hypothesis of your preference, just let me know which is that naturalistic hypothesis and I will be happy to support my assertion of why I think ID is a better explanation.,

The problem is that ID isn't an explanation at all. It has no predictive power, no way to distinguish when it is true versus when it is not, and seems to be able to encompass any data whatsoever.

That means it has absolutely no explanatory power.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are many possible explanations for the FT of the universe ( ID, cosmic darwinism, multiverse, anthropic principle, chance, the universe is not FT etc)

Of all the pool of alternatives I would suggest that ID is the best option based on the data that we have today...... I am assuming that you disagree and that you believe that there is a better alternative, so what is that alternative and why do you think is better than ID?

Quite honestly I think I am asking a very reasonable question, I mean why wouldn't you respond to it?

You are green lit. Any time. Just go.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure at this point the statement “ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” is just an empty assertion, I am willing to support my assertion with objective evidence against the naturalistic hypothesis of your preference, just let me know which is that naturalistic hypothesis and I will be happy to support my assertion of why I think ID is a better explanation.,

How about:

The constants of physics have equilibrium values that maximize complexity. They spontaneously change to be close to those equilibrium values.

 

[dad]

I don't recall anyone making that claim, but I guess I would ask for the reasoning / rational behind that assertion and go from there.

The claim was made by some poster that abiogenesis may now go on but that the new life would be eaten so fast that we would not ever see it! Ha.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And ID's explanation is..............?


Because you're doing everything you can to avoid actually saying what "ID's explanation" is. Until you do that, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate it, or compare it to anything else.

I just wonder how long this will go on. Could be a record -level attempt at belaboring the point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the definition of a false positive. Based on the evidence that they had they predicted that fishapods evolved in the late denovian, they looked in denovian rocks and they found a fishapod, know we know that fishponds evolved at least 20M years before that , so the fact that they found a fishapod in the late devonian was just a coincidence.

Nope, not a false positive. Once again you are using a strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well we do have echolocation in the "dolphin line" and in the "bat line"
In bats and whales, convergence in echolocation ability runs deep

so we have the same traits in 2 independnet lines, why is this different from finding a mammal with feathers?


So would finding a land tetrapod that predates tiktaalik be a problem ?

Feathers are very specific structures. Echo-location is a general talent. You have been shown that bat echolocation is different than that of cetaceans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But up to this date ID is the best explanation for FT agree? If not please provide a better explanation and explain why is that explanation better than ID



Well justify your assertion, define evidence and explain why isn’t FT evidence for ID

Nope, there is no ID explanation.

And scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. There is no ID hypothesis. Therefore there is no ID evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

Ok so finding Tiktaalik in the late Denovian was not a big deal right

It is the Devonian period, not the Denovian. It is named after the county called Devon, in south-west England.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, there is no ID explanation.

The claim was made by some poster that abiogenesis may now go on but that the new life would be eaten so fast that we would not ever see it! Ha.

Why "Ha."? You appear to have made an implication that you must justify,.

 

[dad]

Why "Ha."? You appear to have made an implication that you must justify,.

Well if they claim life started by abiogenesis, and that it still goes on, it seems convenient that all the supposed evidence gets 'disappeared' or eaten faster than they can see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if they claim life started by abiogenesis, and that it still goes on, it seems convenient that all the supposed evidence gets 'disappeared' or eaten faster than they can see it.

Only if one does not understand the science involved.

 

[dad]

Only if one does not understand the science involved.

The more one thinks one understands then, according to you, the less evidence we have? I guess you count yourself a friggin genius then!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The more one thinks one understands then, according to you, the less evidence we have? I guess you count yourself a friggin genius then!

No, the more evidence one can see that exists. You keep forgetting that you do not understand the concept of evidence and refuse to learn. That almost guarantees that any claims you make about evidence will be nonsensical. But then I can understand that. Evidence is the enemy of mythical beliefs. When one believes in myths understanding evidence is the last skill that person will want to have.

And not a genius. But when a person handicaps themselves by putting one foot in a bucket of mental cement it is not difficult to look like a genius in comparison.

Why do you insist on putting your foot into such a bucket?

 

[dad]

No, the more evidence one can see that exists.

You should be able to post it then. Others should also be able to see what is in your head. Walk the walk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should be able to post it then. Others should also be able to see what is in your head. Walk the walk.

I have repeatedly posted evidence. There was some evidence that you requested to be posted again, I offered to post it again, I asked you a question and you ran away. Others have posted evidence as well.

You unfortunately are in no position to demand evidence. Did you forget why?