tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5713288931010686412.post8095100910610064367..comments2023-06-01T01:52:17.691-07:00Comments on Ramblings of a Thomist: Dawkins' Fatal FlawIanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126989897635452902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5713288931010686412.post-16039041539669115502009-11-01T03:41:45.078-08:002009-11-01T03:41:45.078-08:00But if Dawkins had a perfect fossil record showing...But if Dawkins had a perfect fossil record showing minute changes that lead up to larger changes, doesn't that mean that the probability of evolution being true would not be "at best 50/50"? <br>One could argue that you're stacking the deck against a cumulative case for evolution by saying that the prior probability is 50/50. Someone like Dawkins would not grant this and given his view of fossils would say that a forensic science cannot tell you what necessarily happened, but what most probably happened, and that is what the evidence for evolution shows.JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13031942047036607206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5713288931010686412.post-21674634018603569542009-11-01T04:53:41.511-08:002009-11-01T04:53:41.511-08:00But that the fossil records shows change is the ve...But that the fossil records shows change is the very question at hand. I have argued that it only shows difference. The change has to come from somewhere else (that is not direct observation).Ianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126989897635452902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5713288931010686412.post-54896937476222479762010-02-03T04:23:20.624-08:002010-02-03T04:23:20.624-08:00Try writing in English please.Try writing in English please.Ianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126989897635452902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5713288931010686412.post-64566820826981131762010-04-25T05:26:26.145-07:002010-04-25T05:26:26.145-07:00??Ianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06126989897635452902noreply@blogger.com