Direct cut-n-past from Uncommon Descent
drc466 , no. 21:] “there is nothing more irritating than the constant (invalid) refrain from evolutionists of “argument from incredulity”. And the variant “God of the Gaps” or “Goddidit” accusations.
When a scientist, engineer, or layman for that matter, conclusively demonstrates mathematically or empirically that something is impossible, that is not an “argument from incredulity”. It is a proof requiring evidence to the contrary.
Say, for example, that I make the claim “Iron doesn’t float”. That’s not an argument from incredulity, that is a positive hypothesis based on experimental observation that contradicts an alternate theory, that iron does float.
Now, a clever individual may come along, create a boat from the iron, and say, “Look – iron does float. Your theory is falsified.” Which may lead me to restate my theory – “Iron not shaped in such a fashion to capture ‘lighter than water’ materials within its volume does not float”. Again – this is not an argument from incredulity, it is a theory that requires contrary evidence to disprove.
So, when Dr. Axe presents mathematical and empirical evidence that new gene and protein folds cannot occur via gradualistic processes, that is not an “argument from incredulity”. It requires falsification. Merely stating “yeah, we can’t provide you any empirical evidence, mathematical equations, or even realistic computer models that contradict that assertion, but you’re wrong because argument from incredulity!” is not just invalid, it’s outright offensive. And ignorant. And yet, evolutionists do it all the time!
“Organic molecules degrade in 1000’s of years not millions. Original organic material has been found in these fossils. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old.” – “Argument from incredulity!”
“Mutation experiments demonstrate a limit of random mutations before the organism becomes non-viable, and no evidence than mutations can add new information.” – “Argument from incredulity!”
“Mutation rates in genetic material show that even the millions of years evolutionists claim occurred are insufficient to account for any major phyletic transition” – “Argument from incredulity!”
“The time period for the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ is significantly too small to allow for the wide variety of body plans that appeared during this period.” – “Argument from incredulity!”
“2 + 2 does not equal 22” – “Argument from incredulity!”
It’s really tiresome, don’t you think? If I ever use the phrase, I hope someone slaps me. If you honestly believe that someone is postulating a theory based solely on whether or not they personally believe something is possible, then you should be able to offer a reasonable explanation of how it is possible, not just hide behind mommy’s “argument from incredulity” skirt. “
Man, it’s going to take a while to clear out all the deadwood and all the lies propped up, all in the service of naturalism.
Or, more correctly, what naturalism leads to: the social dethronement of God, and the simultaneous exaltation of (the right sort) of Man to take God’s place as the Lawgiver in our societies.
The Fake God is visibly falling apart, with dementia in the sciences only accelerating. Time to kick off the pathetic fraud off God’s throne in society, and — again re-engaging with reality — recognize the ACTUAL Creator and Judge and Redeemer.