My apologies but I assumed such because that is the precise reason why Meyer's hypothesis is not supported by evidence. And since you brought it up, I assumed you were unaware of it, else why would you go for it.First you falsely assume I am not familiar with the critiques. I am. In fact Meyer has often directly addressed the critiques. The GOG is a big one he often addresses. BTW, directing someone to Google is not an answer. That is weaker than milk toast, as well as a faulty appeal to authority.
And you have to understand, Pakistan is not very good with Christian literature, we have next to nothing, most of what I read, I read from Google and the internet, so saying that was not an attack or questioning your intelligence, simply to me that is the best way to get resource material.
J, shared DNA is not a matter of philosophical debate. It is simply true. 400 years ago, no one had gone into space and saw that the sun was in the center and the earth revolved around it. But the theoretical facts pointed that anyway. Imagine some one objecting the same objections. Theoretical models backed by evidence are not open for philosophical discussion. They predict, it is not equivocating. If the observations turns out to be different than the what the base principle says, then the theory is left or revised accordingly.Then why start off begging the question.
When you say "shared genes," you are both question begging and conflating.
When you say "given the evidence," you are equivocating
When you say, "there are many things still to be discovered," you are employing an obvious evolution of the gaps, which is hypocritical as well, considering your objections to GOG. In fact, I'm genuinely concerned that you mention this.
This is not evolution of the gaps, and you are falsely equivocating that GOG = EOG. Within theism a GOG is invalid as an objection, because of obvious reasons. Within science an EOG is invalid as an objection, since that is the basic premise based on observable evidence. All natural sciences work the same way, what we don't know, we may well uncover. I even said, even if we do not uncover somethings, does not mean evolution is false. The same way, you have not seen God and still hold that he exists, your belief is not simply fiction, you have evidence to back it up. Your evidence does not necessarily uncover everything but enough to get you going. In the future you may know more, this is obviously not a GOG.I'm genuinely concerned that you mention this. It is apparent to me that you were either completely oblivious that you were invoking a Evolution of the Gaps fallacy here, or you simply have a double standard and flat don't care. If there is a 3rd option I'd be intrigued to hear. If either of the other two are true, then I wonder what is really going on here, and why.
The problem is you assume to start with, that evolution is simply fiction, a belief that most people adhere to (at most if not all), stories that are imagined to fill in the gaps. I imagine if you would consider, round earthers, as we are, think that believing in a round earth is a belief per se (of course it is more than belief), just because we happen to have a bunch of fellas who believe the earth is flat, does not mean that flat earthers can label round earthers as having just a belief, the same way they do.
The same way just because you have people who believe in ID, T.E, yourself, being YEC, all beliefs; does not necessarily mean that the opposing theories in science are also make belief.
What you do not seem to grasp is that these evolutionary story may well differ in detail from what is being said today but they are true nonetheless in the basic principle, backed up by evidence, DNA to be precise, not just fossils alone. And for that, it is enough evidence to support the model. The best of which is shared genes and DNA, for without shared ancestry, we can not have those genes any other way. The reason this can not be refuted is more than logical tactics, there is no alternate viable model (which I have asked repeatedly for) which explains things which evolution does. But the reason I also imagine there is not other model, is because such a model, even if it fits theoretically (like ID tries to do) would not be supported by evidence, if infact ID holds contrary to evolution.
The reason I implied ID as having a GOG, is because ID fails to accept that it is a philosophical take, not a scientific one. If God is indeed outside of nature, then ID is loaded with GOG. You can accept it as a belief, but God forbid not as science.
See, what you see as fallacies are the very nature to the system of science. Your use of these terms is invalid here, J.Now, if you really think that this (multiple fallacies stacked on one another) is a good starting point, then we might as well
Oh comeon J, stop the patronizing, I have explained all of this above. You may think that evolution is just a fictitious model, made up by godless heathens, loaded with philosophical problems, therefore it must be false but that just says how you perceive science to be, false in my opinion.No, it's not the same. The basic premise of multi-competing hypothesis and the fact that we can examine how complexity (I would say function) occurs, given testable and observable examples, blows that claim out of the water. It's evident the problem is people like you, who wallow in fallacy and refuse to consider anything other than Darwinist starting points. It is absolutely hypocritical to hold ID to some constantly changing standard and ignore the multitude of fallacies that infest the foundations that support your worldview. The fact that you won't deal with it is all the more concerning.
Show me a testable example how function occurs.
That was an excellent post. If you can write this well when you are just rambling I would like to see what you can write when you put an effort into it.