The Web Weavers

You say that a sequence of fossil species is not a factual observation that they are related via common descent. That the sequence is not a factual observation of evolution on a grand scale.

What IS a SEQUENCE? Is it even possible for a SEQUENCE of fossil species to be a "factual observation." I say no. Sequence: - A following of one thing after another; succession. How do we KNOW that one fossil species follows another? - An order of succession; an arrangement. How do we determine the ORDER in which a fossil species succeeds another? - A related or continuous series. Um. That would beg the question, wouldn't it? How do we determine whether one fossil species is RELATED to another or a part of a CONTINUOUS SERIES? - Set of elements, arranged in order according to some rule. What determines the order, who determines the rule? - In mathematics, a sequence is an ordered list of objects (or events). Like a set, it contains members (also called elements or terms), and the number of terms (possibly infinite) is called the length of the sequence. Unlike a set, order matters, and the exact same elements can appear multiple times at different positions in the sequence. OOPS! And oh, yeah. Who or what determines the order? Mung

What!? DarwinDefenders is no longer trademarked!? Personally, I find them amusing. For example:

You say that a sequence of fossil species is not a factual observation that they are related via common descent.

Surely, it is a FACT that all these fossils are members of the same species, or if not, surely it must be a FACT that they are NOT members of the same species, and even IF they are either BOTH members of the same AND/OR NOT members of the same species, surely it is a FACT that they form a SEQUENCE, proving beyond all reasonable doubt that they are related by common descent. Whew! Mung

Aren't DarwinDefenders among the most boring of zealots on the planet? Ilion

Imagine if you called a planet salesman, explained the type of planet you wanted to buy, and he exclaimed he has exactly what you are looking for. Furthermore, the planet is almost new, a mere ten thousand years old! You travel to the planet and with a big smile the salesman shows you a junker. Many areas of the surface are worn bare by glacier movement, the body is coated with thick layers of sediment from eroded mountains, and containing the remains of many plants and animals that no longer exist. The surface has huge canyons worn in the sediment coat, and in mountain ranges you can see the sediment layers crumpled and smashed. You take samples of the planet’s rocks and laboratory tests indicate parts of the planet are several billion years old. “Wait, this beauty is only ten thousand years old, and it has been affected by just one big flood …” exclaims the salesman. Scientists have now spent more than three centuries carefully documenting the layers of the Earth’s surface and the remains of plants and animals contained in them. Now using radiometric dating, they have put together a fairly detailed picture of Earth’s prehistory and the length of time periods involved. The physical evidence shows that the mix of species of plants and animals living on the planet have changed dramatically over millions of years. You say that a sequence of fossil species is not a factual observation that they are related via common descent. That the sequence is not a factual observation of evolution on a grand scale. If you do not accept that the groups of animals and plants in any period are descendants of those that lived in the period that came before, what is your explanation for how the new species came into existence? Were they teleported here by intelligent aliens from another part of the galaxy? Did they shimmer into existence or arrive in a puff of smoke? Or did a supernatural designer spend millions of years fiddling with DNA to alter the shell designs of animals that are visible only under a microscope, or delete whole groups of animals because the designer became annoyed or bored with them? If you wish to claim ID is science, then you have to come up with some physically sound and testable hypotheses. leenibus

Exactly, My Hunter. To knowingly make assertions based on known false reasoning is to lie. It is, in fact, worse than mere lying, for it is intellectual dishonesty, it is hypocrisy with respect to reason. Just as hypocrisy with respect to morality is a special from of lying, and is far worse than mere lying, so too is hypocrisy with respect to reason a special from of lying, and is far worse than mere lying. Ilion