? Pretty plain language: science presumes an intelligible universe.
It appears you have bought into the evolutionist’s non-science presumption, which is: “Since we have not observed any pattern for an effect, we conclude the effect is indeterminable, that is, the effect is random.”
Do you have a specific detailed criticism of the actual chart?
He can explain it since he authored it. He will go through the “petals” and what the genetics show. It is worth the time. ( you could start at around 30 minutes in)
He never gave a good reason for his thesis that mtDNA mutation dating is unreliable. He just made the claim that it was not. Earlier in the talk he made a snide comment about Francis Collins and faint praise for William Lane Craig (because he was a long earther). The lack of objectivity is on full display.
Really - throw the baby out with the bathwater. Given you own continued bias you will never accept the new data until Dawkins converts.
Still won’t argue the main thesis. Nice…Are you now going to cancel all the science mags you now receive?
Hooray! There is a main thesis! And it is…?
I can’t go further than I have, because I do not know his basis for thinking the data supports short earth. I just told you, he went wishy-washy in that section of the talk. If he actually published, that would probably help me have a more fully formed response.
What the heck does Dawkins have to do with this? That came out of nowhere…
I have not thrown anything out. I just don’t have much to go on except to see that Carter’s talk started with the ad hominem and did not improve from there. I was left wondering where his critical thinker got to…This is a non-sequitur, but, as it happens, I do not have any active magazine subscriptions of any sort. So, you just make yourself look more foolish and presumptive with every comment.
Is that what: “All science depends on presuming the opposite” means? No wonder I was confused. Still, thanks for the clarification. And yes it* does. I agree with that.
Close, but not quite. Since, in spite of trying, nobody has observed any pattern to this occurrence, we cannot conclude that the hypothesis (that genetic mutation is random) is incorrect. It’s similar, but not the same.
No, you’re going off on one again. Whose goal is crystal clear? What does this mean?
What end result?
When he posted the video earlier in the thread. I watched it, and then asked him for what he thought the strengths and weaknesses were so that my thoughts on it could be more productive. I got nadda…so it is not a surprise that he has not explained what the main point is for him…
You doubt - yet it makes absolutely no matter.
So we should still kill witches, as God says? It is still there in the Bible. Do we stone adulterers to death?
Surely not…