Comments on: Arrogant Assumptions http://danielmiessler.com/blog/arrogant-assumptions grep understanding Tue, 15 May 2012 12:09:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Eznight http://danielmiessler.com/blog/arrogant-assumptions/comment-page-1#comment-257620 Eznight Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:11:00 +0000 http://www.dmiessler.com/blog/?p=21#comment-257620 <p>“I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil [a fossil which is ancestral or transitional] for which one could make a watertight argument.” ~ Colin Patterson, FRS</p> <p>“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.” ~ Professor Stephen Jay Gould (atheist)</p> <p>“We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while it does not.” ~ Niles Eldridge ~ American Museum of Natural History</p> <p>“Evolution is accepted by zoologists, not because it is observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” ~ Professor D.M.S Watson</p> <p>“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. ” ~ Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin</p> “I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil [a fossil which is ancestral or transitional] for which one could make a watertight argument.” ~ Colin Patterson, FRS

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.” ~ Professor Stephen Jay Gould (atheist)

“We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while it does not.” ~ Niles Eldridge ~ American Museum of Natural History

“Evolution is accepted by zoologists, not because it is observed to occur or… can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” ~ Professor D.M.S Watson

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. ” ~ Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin

]]> By: Eznight http://danielmiessler.com/blog/arrogant-assumptions/comment-page-1#comment-257619 Eznight Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:09:00 +0000 http://www.dmiessler.com/blog/?p=21#comment-257619 <p>I have already read "The Greatest Show on Earth". What's your point since nothing in his book provides observable evidence for macro-evolution? Nor does it provide any counter evidence for John Barrow and Frank Tipler's statement in their book “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” which lists 10 steps in the course of human evolution. Each of which is so improbable that before it would occur the Sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth. And they calculate the probability of the evolution of the human genome to be somewhere between 4 to the -180th power to the 110,000 power and 4 to the -360th power to the 110,000 power. So if evolution did occur on this planet it was literally a miracle and therefore evidence for the existence of God.</p> I have already read “The Greatest Show on Earth”. What’s your point since nothing in his book provides observable evidence for macro-evolution? Nor does it provide any counter evidence for John Barrow and Frank Tipler’s statement in their book “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” which lists 10 steps in the course of human evolution. Each of which is so improbable that before it would occur the Sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth. And they calculate the probability of the evolution of the human genome to be somewhere between 4 to the -180th power to the 110,000 power and 4 to the -360th power to the 110,000 power. So if evolution did occur on this planet it was literally a miracle and therefore evidence for the existence of God.

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/arrogant-assumptions/comment-page-1#comment-257616 Daniel Miessler Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:24:00 +0000 http://www.dmiessler.com/blog/?p=21#comment-257616 <p>Go read "The Greatest Show on Earth", by Richard Dawkins. If you're unwilling to read the science then you can't play here. Last warning.</p> Go read “The Greatest Show on Earth”, by Richard Dawkins. If you’re unwilling to read the science then you can’t play here. Last warning.

]]> By: Eznight http://danielmiessler.com/blog/arrogant-assumptions/comment-page-1#comment-257615 Eznight Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:38:00 +0000 http://www.dmiessler.com/blog/?p=21#comment-257615 <p>This is not, nor will it ever be, the argument from theism. Both the atheist and the theist use the same logical inference based on observables. Evolutionists essentially try to extrapolate macro-evolution from micro-evolution even though macro-evolution is not in the fossil record, has never been observed, cannot be repeated and has failed every test. Along with the fact that there is no genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome. Yet evolutionists still believe in macro-evolution because they think they are able to draw a logical inference based on observing micro-evolution.</p> <p>The theists also base their logical inference on observables. If a structure looks designed both the atheist and theist say there must be a designer even though we may never see that designer (i.e. ancient structures). So since the universe clearly shows design the theist postulates it must have a designer.</p> This is not, nor will it ever be, the argument from theism. Both the atheist and the theist use the same logical inference based on observables. Evolutionists essentially try to extrapolate macro-evolution from micro-evolution even though macro-evolution is not in the fossil record, has never been observed, cannot be repeated and has failed every test. Along with the fact that there is no genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome. Yet evolutionists still believe in macro-evolution because they think they are able to draw a logical inference based on observing micro-evolution.

The theists also base their logical inference on observables. If a structure looks designed both the atheist and theist say there must be a designer even though we may never see that designer (i.e. ancient structures). So since the universe clearly shows design the theist postulates it must have a designer.

]]>