Question 1: The Fossil Record

[Simon]

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms "is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

[bernee51]

Simon - you're back - and here I was beginning to think you were a seagull.

ID is psuedoscience - have you read any real critiques by real scientists of Demski or Behe?

Yes, I have. I've read Pigliucci and Sober especially.

You have failed to show that IDT is psuedoscience.

I have not attempted to...I was merely expressing by opinion.

You have failed to demonstrate that ID is scientific.

Have you read Dembski? Or just the critiques? If so, tell me what you have read.

I have read enough by and about Dembski to understand he speaks with a forked tongue. He appears to be more motivated by religion than science - that speaks volumes.

[Simon]

I'll take that as a "No."

So you admit that you havn't read anything by Dembski, and yet you come to such conclusions about him. That's ignorance. And don't come back at me with "this is a fallacious ad hominem" .. because it's not.

As Bruce N. Waller points out in his book, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict 4th edition, not all ad hominems are fallacious:

The ad hominem fallacy is committed when one fallaciously attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the source of the argument. But not all uses of ad hominem arguments involve the ad hominem fallacy; in fact, most ad hominem arguments do not commit the ad hominem fallacy. (Unfortunately, many logic and critical thinking textbooks treat all ad hominem arguments as automatically fallacious. That has the advantage of being simpler; it has the disadvantage of being wrong.) And ad hominem argument commits the ad hominem fallacy only if it attacks the source of an argument and claims that because of some flaw in the source of the argument the argument itself is flawed. (pp.182)

Waller goes on to provide an example of a nonfallacious ad hominem argument.

Let’s say I’m running for senate and my opponent argues that I am unfit to be senator because I have three convictions for perjury, four for mail fraud, and five for forgery. That information may well be important to voters, who would legitimately wish to consider it in judging my fitness to serve as their senator.

Waller calls this a nonfallacious legitimate ad hominem. As an example of an illegitimate nonfallacious ad hominem, he says,

If my opponent attacks me because I’m bald and my ears look funny, that ad hominem attack seems irrelevant to my agility to be an effective senator. It is not an ad hominem fallacy (it does not suggest my arguments are no good because I’m bald and have funny-looking ears)..

My pointing out your ignorance with regard to Dembski in particular (and IDT in general) is neither irrelevant or fallacious; in fact, it has everythign to do with this discussion. One of us has read and understood the literature on boths sides, and one of us has read one side of the literature and so remains ignorant.

Instead of trying to engage me on the issues, you simply dismiss my posts out of hand by saying that ID is pseudoscience. However, if you want to do that, you are burdened with showing that this is the case. Otherwise, you're just some guy on the Internet pushing in his 2-cents in a conversation, but you're not really a participant. You're just posturing yourself. And that is telling.

[Jose]

Have you read Dembski?

I have read enough by and about Dembski to understand he speaks with a forked tongue.

I'll take that as a "No."

So you admit that you havn't read anything by Dembski, and yet you come to such conclusions about him.

As I see it, bernee51 has said that he has read enough by Dembski to understand some things. How do you interpret this as "no" without ignoring what he said? It doesn't sound at all like admitting that he hasn't read anything by him; he says he has read such stuff.

It's no good debating if you ignore what the other guy says, and come back with statements that contradict what his actual statements. This kinda makes you look, at best, rather closed-minded.

By the way, our question to you still stands: what is your definition of a transitional fossil? What would one look like? Remember, we can't actually deal with your real question until you address this one.

[bernee51]

I'll take that as a "No."

Are you having difficuly reading...

So you admit that you havn't read anything by Dembski, ...

I said no such thing

That's ignorance.

You should be able to recognise it.

And don't come back at me with "this is a fallacious ad hominem" ..

Why? Don't you like the truth?

Instead of trying to engage me on the issues, you simply dismiss my posts out of hand by saying that ID is pseudoscience.

You have presented no evidence in support of your alleged opinions. You have merely parroted the spin of pseudoscientists. When you decide to make a stand, and support it with your own argument let me know and I will address them. If I want to debate with Dembski I will write to him.

You're just posturing yourself. And that is telling.

Awe tsk tsk. You pique is showing

And that is telling



And BTW

what is your definition of a transitional fossil? What would one look like?

Let me hazard a guess based on your response so far...

[Simon]

What have you read anything by Dembski?

[bernee51]

What have you read by Dembski?

you first...

what is your definition of a transitional fossil? What would one look like?

[Simon]

What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?


PS - you better hurry up and read one of Dembski's papers so you can say you've read something.

[bernee51]

What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

I assume by 'intermediate fossil forms" you are referring to transitional fossils.

What is your definition of a transitional fossil? What would one look like?

Perhaps you would like to respond or iis it a case of...

"Otherwise, you're just some guy on the Internet pushing in his 2-cents in a conversation, but you're not really a participant. You're just posturing yourself. And that is telling."

[Simon]

You can't answer the question.

[bernee51]

You can't answer the question.

Well you certainly know about not answering questions so I guess I'l have to take your word for it.

Looks like we'll never ever know Simon's definition of a transitional fossil or what he thinks one looks like.

EOD