Argument against biological evolution. (Relative to the past) It is as follows; We have no experience of what things intially looked like in the past. For we did not see things changing in the past. Hence our reliance on fossils/palaeontology. But, since fossils belong in the past, it implies that we are not observing things that are changing. And consequently, we can only use the past tense of the word (namely, change) to characterize our observation of the fossils. Therefore we are observing fossils that have CHANGED. If we are observing fossils that have CHANGED, then the fossils do not look like what they initially looked like. So, the fossils do not look like what they intially looked like. If the fossils do not look like what they intially looked like, then (since we have no past experience of what the fossils initially looked like) we cannot establish that the fossils have changed. Hence we cannot establish that the fossils have changed. So, we cannot use the fossils to establish change with modification over a period of time. Therefore, necessarily, we cannot use the fossils to establish that biological evolution occurred in the past. It is important to note: That i am referring to the alleged changes that are displayed by fossils. My argument shows you that palaeontology/fossils cannot be used to establish.CHANGE with modification/or biological evolution.
Posted on: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:30:03 +0000