dwise1 writes:
What does it take to convert a heart from 3 chambers to 4? A septum, which is a thin muscular wall that splits the amphibian/reptilian ventricle into two.
Well I don't know -that's like saying that to convert a four chambered heart to a three chambered one, all you have to do is get rid of the septum -but that on it's own would definately kill you in the wild -it's just not that simple -a whole lot of other things have to change in order for it to work -and the changes have to be perfectly co-ordinated to keep you alive along the way.
First, removing the septum of a four-chambered heart would indeed make it three-chambered. But that would also cause the oxygenated and deoxygenated blood to mix and result in a reduction in the circulatory systems ability to deliver oxygen to the body. Now in a small cold-blooded animal that wouldn't cause much of a problem, but since a four-chambered heart normally belongs to warm-blooded animal of any size or a large cold-blooded animal (eg, a crocodile) who needs efficient delivery of oxygen to the body, such an operation would impair or even kill.
Why would you even suggest such a thing? What is your point? What possible bearing does that have on the fact that the transition from 3 to 4 chambers is not the impossibility that you erroneously believe it to be?
Second:
What evolutionists do is convert their philisophical prejudice into a sequence or story line that most likely never happened and then just wave their magic wand over it to baptize it as fact.
"most likely never happened"?
It happens practically every day! You forget
the crocodiles. Born with a three-chambered heart, which converts to a four-chambered heart as it grows larger? "never happened"? WTF?
OK. You claim that the transition from three to four chambers never happened. The crocodiles do it all that time -- collectively that is; each croc does it only once in its lifetime, if it grows to maturity, and it does so without skipping a beat.
Therefore, you are demonstrating to us that
your beliefs and your position are contrary-to-fact and contrary to the evidence.
Thank you for clearing that up. Now that you have informed all of us of that fact, when are you going to get around to informing yourself?
dwise1 writes:
just because you personally are unable to understand how something could happen and does happen, that does not constitute any kind of evidence against that something happening....the fallacy that you have been basing most of your arguments on is called "personal incredulity."
Actually it's more about the fact that's there's no scientific evidence to back up the assertion so I'd rather tend towards incredulity until the evidence is there.The opposite of personal incredulity would be "gullibility" I'd think.
If you are going to make such exclusive use of fallacious arguments, you should at least try to familiarize yourself with the informal fallacies.
"Personal incredulity is related to the "argument from ignorance" (
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia):
quote:
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true.
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true.
Rather than causing oneself to fall prey to personal incredulity, the position that you should seek is one of
skepticism, withholding acceptance of an idea until you can learn more about it.
And if you are to be honest about it, then, considering that:
1. you would be skeptical of evolution since you deem there to be insufficient evidence for it, and
2. there is vastly more evidence for evolution than there is for ID, then
3. (conclusion) you must also be skeptical of ID.
Of course, you could gullibly accept ID despite its total lack of evidence, but in that case you would not be honest.
We have no problem at all if someone doesn't accept evolution. The problem is when they promote the rejection of evolution and science
for all the wrong reasons. If you are going to reject something, then do it for the right reasons. And if you are going to attack an idea, then do it correctly.
Oh, and if you protest that there is indeed evidence
for ID, do please
present it! That is, after all, what this topic is here for.
™ Version 4.2
