...Adveniat...

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. Galatians 1:8

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

If you are following a Pachamama idolatry supporter, a grandma spirit calling High Priest, teaching heresy right and left, you are already in schism.
Gal1:8 if we or an angel from heaven preaches contrary to the gospel, let them be accursed

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof It must be said that while at least going in the right direction , they still presume natural processes are sufficient. Even full success would not distinguish, logically or probabilistically, naturalistic sufficiency from non naturalistic accounts in which those processes arent

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof As far as I can tell , these are evolutionary researchers committed to naturalistic evolution, still attempting to connect microevolution to macroevolution. Their admitted limits show that your simple extrapolation is not it

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof The question is whether the move from observed "evolution" to total generative sufficiency is a warranted inference, or whether the disputed sufficiency is simply being assumed. That seems to be one source of confusion in this exchange.

I’m off to bed.

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof My eyes are tired, so I’ll probably respond tomorrow. But before I go: an assumption is a proposition taken for granted without having been established. An inference is a conclusion drawn from evidence/data by reasoning. They are not the same thing...

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof Well that, and I just enjoy these exchcnages.

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof What I wanted is already achieved. I.e. to show that the strong claim being treated as settled science is actually an assumption that should be acknowledged as an epistemic limitation and a burden that hasn´t been met, rather than merely handwaved away as unproblematic.

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof What’s reasonable is to openly acknowledge this as an assumption and that the burden of demonstrating sufficiency (rather than assuming it) has not been met and to proceed with a clear understanding of that limitation.

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof Right, that’s the objection. You agree it’s an assumption to extrapolate from observed small scale changes to the claim that Darwinian processes are sufficient for all the integrated complexity and diversity of life...

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof Whether the observed processes of mutation, heredity, selection, and adaptation have been shown able to generate integrated biological systems and the full diversity of life, instead of assumed to be so.

https://t.co/aLOdxZWg8t

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof @Opaopa13 Is the standard high? I don´t thint it is. It is actually a very garden variety standard.

Here is an analogy to try to explain the key point.

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@LatFilosof The deeper point does not depend on species or kind being clearly defined.

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

https://t.co/2fwYB7iCiA

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

https://t.co/uFnTOtNcjs

[...Adveniat... @ektromati]

@SpeedWatkins Some have shown that it is a false dilemma, despite themselves thinking DCT is false. Perhaps that is why new types of arguments against DCT have proliferated. The last two images are from J. L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Part III, Chapter 10, §1