John Whitfield, “Fossils challenge DNA in the dating game” 10.1038/447894a, p 894-895 v 447, Nature, 21 Jun 2007.

Why is it that–though physicists and mathematicians talk about it all the time–one hardly ever encounters a biologist (or anthropologist or linguist) who is even aware of the problem?

That’s what I tried to tell him — to no avail. Strange.

If yes, then there are absolutes.

If not, then in some cases it is not true. Therefore, there are absolutes.

If he believes in logic, he believes in absolute truths.

Gee, I wish I had known Hoyle said that. I and a few other IDists I know have been saying it for years without having known about Hoyle’s comment. I suspect a whole slew of other IDists have been thinking the same.

It’s particularly obvious when one has confronted Darwinists in debate many times over. You end up having to question their capacity to reason correctly.

I remember one such debate in which my opponent claimed that there are no absolutes. I asked him whether he thought 2+2 (in any conceivable universe) always = 4 and whether that was an absolute or not.

He claimed it was not an absolute.

He was a very bright young software developer & analyst. So his very livelihood depended on the absolute truths of math. Yet he would not change his mind for anything I could say. His whole world view depended on denial of absolutes.

So we can see why a reversal of opinion on his part would have meant a powerful shock to his whole mental life and reason for living – a shock which in religious terms would be called “conversion”.

I’ve debated with many like him. The only ones who make the admission of absolutes end up in the theist camp.

The very existence of logical absolutes is unaccountable under atheism. That’s why they almost invariably deny them (all while using them as such – go figure).

So we see that indeed, atheist/Darwinist thinking cripples the mind and immunizes it against logic and common sense.

Ah yes, I remember this. I recently brought up this problem to a TE friend I have and his reply was that Denton now changed his views (in Nature’s Destiny)! As if that alone was enough to solve the issue!

As far as I know, Denton still holds to his critique of Darwinisim presented in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”. He was just presenting another view in Nature’s Destiny.

Are palaeontologists missing fossils, or do bursts of evolutionary diversification throw off molecular clocks? You have to take both sides seriously, says Rich Cifelli of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History in Norman.

“Missing fossils?” What else is new?

Another way evolutionists expressing surprise is this: the evolutionary history of such-a-thing is “more complex than expected”.

My favorite Darwinist euphemism for “we didn’t expect that” is “sheds new light on evolution”. Can you believe that exact phrase occurs almost 2,000 times in Google?

You have me beat though. “more complex than expected” +evolution occurs almost 10,000 times!

If my naive understanding of science is correct, one important criteria for evaluating the validity of a theory is its predictive power. Why then do Darwinists, whose theory is supported by mountains of overwhelming speculation evidence, seem to spend so much time being “surprised” by new findings,

Good observation. In fact, we frequently see evolutionists being “surprised” by new findings.

Another way evolutionists expressing surprise is this: the evolutionary history of such-a-thing is “more complex than expected”.

Often times, they expect to see a tree, but they get bushes. That’s why it’s “more complex than expected”.

They say evolutionary “history”. I often take it to mean evolution “story”.