(February 18, 2016 at 2:22 pm)AAA Wrote:(February 18, 2016 at 1:22 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: argument from incredulity.
You are dismissing something based on your own inability to either believe or at least entertain the evidence as currently provided. Unfortunately this is not sufficient to form a counter hypothesis. You require some study or body of literature that explains an alternative proposal which has the verifiable and testable data behind it allowing it to be reproduced. If you could provide some that'd be swell, please.
No, actually I don't need to put forward an alternative in order to reject an explanation that doesn't hold up. I don't have to accept an inadequate cause just because it is the only choice. I can rather say I don't know. Better yet, I can use the cause that is adequate: designer. I don't have to prove the inability of gradual processes leading to thousands of specified nucleotides. That is the null hypothesis which we assume to be true. We must then try to support the alternative hypothesis (gradual processes are sufficient). That would be like me telling you to prove that God doesn't exist using repeatable and testable data, which we both agree isn't a fair request. Both theories about the past are impossible to investigate using the conventional scientific empiricism which you are talking about.
If your going to posit a designer as an alternative to evolution, you most certainly must supply evidence. It's called the burden of proof and it's on you.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
