Is A Materialist View Less Parsimonious?

Your whole thing doesn't make any sense.If I left a plastic bucket of seawater, the water taken out of the Indian Ocean and left in the sun to evaporate, until only a lot of dry salts are left, does that count as 'materialism'?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

e) dunno

Oh, I'll be happy to answer this one.You left out one of the answers. No Spooks involved.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

That starts off very bad. What the heck is "supernature"? Are you making things up?

I say the wag was being silly.I have no idea what "in the beginning" even means.

Yes, Mike doesn't seem to be very bright. All those logical fallacies all in one.

Dirt is more plausible. At least it doesn't hide from us or expect us to have faith in it.

Two things about that:1. If you are going to count every transitional as a separate assumption then by the same token we ‘materialists’ can easily trump you by saying that in your creation story God put every atom in the universe in its place. I’ll let you figure out for yourself the number of assumptions this would entail if we allow the use of this, frankly, silly kind of reasoning. Which we won’t, so you’re off the hook.2. Although the fossil record is necessarily incomplete, many - indeed very many - transitionals have been found. They are not assumptions, they are actual facts of reality. And by induction, a technique you seem to be so fond of, we can conclude that transitionals must have existed for every pair of closely related species we care to think of, especially so if we consider the logical implications of the principle of evolution: imperfect replication under natural selection.

Here's a photograph of dirt. Your turn.

We have a picture of the dirt---expanded. We cannot photograph God, however. He is more elusive than Greta Garbo!

Good to hear from you again.Point 1. Atoms aren't assumptions, they exist already. I don't see why the atoms need to be placed.Point 2. "- indeed very many - transitionals have been found"This is a weak point because it is slothful induction fallacy. Need I show you on a chart of species, the missing transitionals for each lineage on the branches? The missing transitionals outnumber the "found" ones by what, a thousand to one? I think I am being generous.Then there is the issue of what a transitional actually is. Technically speaking, there is no way to actually know if it was a transitional or simply a creature that had some homoplasies. For example there are some lizards with the plastron which seems to be hero-in-a-half-shell for evo, but then, platypi have beaks!When you look at the total evidence, the more parsimonious explanation seem to be that the relatively few "transitionals", or things you call, "transitionals" are actually examples of chimeras, which I define as species that had SOME shared characteristics, but are an example of tremendous diversity, not evolution.These features are usually shared because they are the best design for the job. Take bats, oil birds and whales, they all have echolocation. It's simply the best design.Now think of the transitionals missing, have you ever sat down and just asked yourself what would have to be missing? Start with trees, then ask yourself, generally speaking, are there transitionals for the cambrian critters? Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Now can you just show us how that dirt could create itself into a sand castle on it's own? Oh I forget, a sand-castle is the very lowest rung of intelligent design, YET IT NEEDS A DESIGNER.Good luck finding critters make themselves from that dirt. And by the way, your claim is primordial sludge not dirt, so please show me some primordial sludge that came from earth, with the fictional abiogenesised sci-fi animals being put together by the mud over millions of fictional evo-years.Until then, go and get a photograph of your own dirt, instead of using God's.

Perhaps we could discuss your gross ignorance of evolution, anatomy, and the difference between homology and analogy on another thread.All that aside, we can observe lots of intermediate forms, whereas we have never observed God make an organism by magic, or indeed anyone doing anything by magic. Creationists imagine a whole class of events of which we have never observed a single instance, having a cause of a kind which we have never ever seen operate. And this, according to you, is parsimonious?

No, which is why I never claimed that such a thing has happened.Now can you show me a talking snake?

Yep, I'm, a very stupid person, which is why I have the all time high score on this logic-game, since I am as thick as cold custard. (the original score is a hacked one, meaning I am top of the tree, which means I must have trouble figuring out logic, I guess, and am prone to fallacies.
.
Zoobiedoku - MindGames.comThen when you've finished showing how stupid I am, you can check my score on this mathematics game, which I guess is proof I can't add 2 and 2, being a creationist called Bubba, y'all. Chalkboard Sums - MindGames.comOR, shall we just agree that a bare-assertion that I am stupid, is actually and ironically, a sign you can't provide an argument to defeat me, and is one of the fallacies of diversion called argumentum ad hominem. "Khan, I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Captain Kirk, - The wrath of Khan.