It is NOT an Argument from Authority. It is an argument from evidence and the process of peer review.
The fact that “not all authority is right” is irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody is saying, “Biologists who were smart enough to earn tenure have demanded this belief, therefore you must obey them and agree.”
Huh? Let’s apply that same “logic” to these sentences:
“If Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation was testable you would be able to falsify it.”
“If Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity was testable you would be able to falsify it.”
I’m finding it very difficult to follow your logic.
Yes, I think you did a great job with the data available. I think the model I came up with is iffy. There are still issues here but you made a good case.
It is falsifiable. All you have to do is show the phylogenetic tree created from the fossil record is wildly discordant with the phylogenetic tree created from the DNA of extant species.
Bill still doesn’t understand that not falsified is not the same as not falsifiable.
Are you saying that gravity was not directly designed by God, instead it originates from some natural process? I think most everyone, Christian or not, would say that gravity is part of the fabric of the universe. Thus the origin of the universe includes the origin of gravity.
Gravity certainly could be designed by God. The question is if there is a natural mechanism we can model. We cannot discount if that mechanism ( mass) was designed by God. In my opinion everything was designed by God. There are mechanisms however that He designed that are first order cause like matter or mind.
This is possible. It is also possible that nested hierarchy is a weak argument in the same vein as the poor design argument that @swamidass criticizes.
No, sorry. That isn’t possible. Your inability to remember may have something to do with it, but you unwillingness to read and understand what you’ve been shown is probably also a factor. You could produce a counterexample, i.e. a nested hierarchy emerging from human designs, but you would first have to understand what a nested hierarchy is and how to demonstrate it, then go through the work of assembling a data set and analyzing it for hierarchical structure. You can’t just say a couple of words, e.g. “Macintosh computers”.
This is a poor argument because the hierarchal structure depends on the design strategy. The hierarchal structure of cars is different than software. We easily can show a hierarchal structure from human designs. That it is slightly different than the hierarchal structure of living organisms is a trivial issue.
Also we know the pattern of life includes some common descent where human designs do not.
.
Omg who cares!? Even if you could (you can’t) a nested hierarchy would still be evidence for common ancestry. Common ancestry predicts such a pattern. Design does not. Compatible with != not evidence against. Why can’t you guys grasp the most simple of points?
If car - jet fighter - space shuttle were truly a nested hierarchy, a jet fighter would be very similar to a car except for the wings. Is that the case, @scd? Think about these factors:
Who are “we”, and if you can do it easily, why haven’t you?
What do you mean by “some”?
Bill, you keep asking the same questions over and over, even though they’ve been answered over and over. Common ancestry predicts the pattern because it’s what results from a branching tree of descent. You can easily simulate that process and see what results, and it’s just the sort of thing we observe.
I asked TJ this question. I want to know what he understands. I know your answer is that common descent explains the branching pattern and it is a limited explanation independent of mechanism.
