Well, this series is almost at an end as there are only three more predictions to go. So, let's get started, shall we?
12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. – The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas.
Ah yes, the Cambrian explosion that IDers like to go on and on about. Let's start with the obvious issues in that even if the Cambrian explosion showed what IDers claim it does, it would not help in their quest to prove Adam and Eve and all that stuff. So, it seems a bit of a pyrrhic victory at best.
Still, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we do have a good fossil record and that the Cambrian explosion is not a problem for evolution.
Once again our theist is simply making things up.
13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record – Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils.
I've already dealt with the numerous transitional fossils claim above, so I won't rehash that, and it should be noted that this idea of sudden appearance and rapid diversity does not help the theist. Besides, is the theist arguing that god came down every couple million years and re-did his handiwork to put new animals on the ground and make the old ones extinct?
And, let's also look at this claim that, "Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils." What Chutzpah. The only people truly contesting the existence of these transitionals are the creationists! Evolutionary biologists (scientists) do not dispute these. The small disputes that do arise are over minute details that do not impact the overall theory. It would be like arguing over whether a large city has 10,345,632 or 10,345,658 inhabitants and having the creationist claim that this means that the city doesn't exist.
14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record.
OK, numerous problems here. First of all, man didn't suddenly appear. We have quite a large collection of hominid fossils. Also, it must be noted that the we have observed instances of speciation.
Also, it's simply not true that there should be speciation on a "somewhat constant basis." Speciation happens when certain conditions are met. There's no guarantee that these conditions will be met on a "somewhat constant basis." Once again we see the theist doesn't actually know what he's talking about and argues against strawmen.
Conclusion:
This series has focused on 14 different claims made by a theist, and not one has really been worthwhile. Most (if not all) make claims about materialism or theism that simply are not true. Also, the theist has repeatedly made erroneous claims in order to try and buttress his already tenuous assertions, and has shown a complete ignorance of science, how it works, and what we know from it. If it were really as easy as this theist claims to say theism predicts this or that, then he would still be playing a losing hand.
Other posts in this series...
14 comments:
Also, it must be noted that the we have observed instances of speciation.
how is that a problem for 14?
Man isn't the "last species created on Earth."
ah, i see. you meant that we have observed ^human^ speciation. is that right?
if so, which definition are you applying?
No, that's not right and no you don't see.
We have "observed" hominid speciation through fossils, etc. but that's not even close to what I'm talking about.
The theist is claiming that humans are the last on the scene (because god made them last). This is incorrect. We have physically observed instances of speciation which would mean that species have arisen after humans. (Not to mention - and I didn't but should have - that evolution is an on-going process and that humans are no more evolved than any other lifeform.)
hmm... so, are you not necessarily talking about ^hominid^ or ^human^ speciation, but just speciation in general?
We are so poorly adapted to our new bipedalism that the development of painful foot, knee, lower back, and neck problems are extremely common.
Ouch!
That's what you call "Unintelligent Design." It works, but it has major flaws. Back to the drawing board!
Our large infant head size versus narrow maternal pelvic girdle size results in very painful (often dangerous) birthing situations. Historically, is has been quite common that infant, mother, or both, would die in childbirth.
Hardly the final version.
Just because humans are smart, it doesn't mean we are highly-evolved.
There are many species that fit their niches so perfectly that they are virtually unchanged over millions of years. Look at sharks.
Alpha predators. Perfectly suited. Successful for millions and millions of years.
We are not so impressive.
"hmm... so, are you not necessarily talking about ^hominid^ or ^human^ speciation, but just speciation in general?"
That's what the link indicates, yes.
if ^speciation in general^ then we're back to square one
i get the rest of the post but how is ^speciation in general^ a problem for 14?
The theist is claiming that humans are the last on the scene (because god made them last). This is incorrect. We have physically observed instances of speciation which would mean that species have arisen after humans.
i get that but the ^speciation in general^ that we do see is not post-human. unless you want to accept something like indigo children as an evolved species or some shit like that
do you just mean something like ^since speciation has occurred then it's likely going to occur in humans too?^
or when you say
The theist is claiming that humans are the last on the scene
do you mean last ^species^ on the scene? then i could see what you mean by ^newer species have arisen^ which would make that false as in humans haven't yet evolved into another species but other species have
be aware i'm just asking questions about your position not saying anything i've said ^is^ your position
help me out here
and just so you don't waste any time on it let me say i agree with
Also, it's simply not true that there should be speciation on a "somewhat constant basis." Speciation happens when certain conditions are met. There's no guarantee that these conditions will be met on a "somewhat constant basis."
it's how ^speciation in general^ relates to 14 that i still don't see
Godless Randall: i get that but the ^speciation in general^ that we do see is not post-human.
Several new species have evolved since homo sapiens evolved. That being the case, the claim that homo sapiens were the last species created is thus rendered false.
Godless Randall: unless you want to accept something like indigo children as an evolved species or some shit like that
help me out here
GCT previously clarified: We have "observed" hominid speciation through fossils, etc. but that's not even close to what I'm talking about.
GCT is not referring to hominid speciation in regard to 14. You continue to address his point regarding 14 as if he is referring to hominid speciation.
Ergo, you are either one profoundly obtuse or one profoundly disingenuous pratt.
You're welcome.
"do you mean last ^species^ on the scene?"
Yes. The story of Genesis is that all the animals are created with man being created last. This creationist is claiming that man was created last, but we know new species have evolved since hominids came on the scene.
Ergo, you are either one profoundly obtuse or one profoundly disingenuous pratt.
give it a rest already man. it's the fucking internet
try not to let my discussion with your other guest color things. i'm not trying to spin your wheels
Yes. The story of Genesis is that all the animals are created with man being created last. This creationist is claiming that man was created last, but we know new species have evolved since hominids came on the scene.
i get all that believe me i grew up fundy midwest style
are you just arguing against something like ^fixity of species^ then?
then i would see the relation to 14
or are you arguing there is something incompatible with ^humans were the last species created^ and ^any or all species have evolved since then^ ?
Godless Randall: give it a rest already man. it's the fucking internet
This from the ironic fucktard who wrote on his blog, "All the time (ok not all the time but often) I see atheists acting like total dicks and it makes me want to reach through the net and slap ‘em. Not all of us, but enough of us. The difference between how we talk in class and how some of these mofuckers talk on the internet is night and day. I think if an atheist or anyone else can’t make their case intelligently without a bunch of fucking shit-talk, that’s fucked. FUCKED, I say!"
Post a Comment