Replies

". . . The taxonomic data could have result of any number of processes, not just evolution, and the methodology that informs your challenge would be unchanged. . . ."

You are still missing the point. The "taxonomic data" you refer to are the observed characteristics of the fossils in any given geological age existing within a single geological stratum. The "taxonomic theory" that brings all of that "data" together is the tracing of heritable traits from ancestor species to their evolved descendants. I have already admitted that one could make an argument that, within any given geological stratum, the origins of the fossil species that exist there could -- in terms of pure theory alone argued outside of common sense -- have come to reside there by any one of a number of causes. But what I insist upon pointing out, and what you repeatedly ignore, is that the tracing of heritable traits between ancestor and descendant species requires a theoretical justification to explain their existence within a continuum and that the evolutionary science of taxonomy is the only justifiable, i.e. "believable," explanation that can be offered to explain this transition. Relying upon outside actors, whether God or extraterrestrials, requires acceptance of repeated and orderly interventions to a point at which it cannot be deemed acceptable, and certainly fails the test of "empirical scientific reasoning."

"In order for your challenge to work, you're basically requiring us to first accept the truth of the thing the challenge is supposed to be about. As such, it's logically fallacious."

No; I am asking you to accept two things only: 1. That Petroleum Geologists use taxonomy and other scientific knowledge and methodolgies used by evolutionary scientists. 2. That Petroleum Geologists actually do find oil. Both of these are proven facts.

What I am asking you to do is to give an explanation as to how petroleum geologists find oil in spite of what you or anyone else who believes that new scientific evidence undermines the Theory of Evolution have argued. Because if those arguments against the Theory of Evolution are correct, then that means that petroleum geologists are operating under false assumptions. So the challenge is definitely valid.

Thus far; your repeated attempts to answer the challenge have come down to two things. 1. Your first attempt to argue that their success is explained by mere correlation of maps and charts with other oil finds. I have demonstrated to you that this is an inadequate response since you treat the scientific methodologies petroleum geologists use as dependent upon "static" evidence, which denies the "vertical" progression of the evolution of species from one geologic age to the next, which is a key underpinning to taxonomy, an evolutionary science petroleum geologists utilize when searching for oil, and a key factor in justifying its use since that "vertical" progression across geologic ages validates the methodology in their eyes. 2. After refusing to address the importance of heritable traits in taxonomy from one geologic age to the next you have attempted to deny the challenge by arguing that I am asking you to assume the answer as a premise to my argument (challenge). Now, just for your information, in terms of logic the fallacy you are attempting to accuse me of committing is known as Petitio Principii or "begging the question." But I would only be guilty of this if I could not demonstrate that taxonomy offers a theoretical explanation based upon causality, which it does in fact do, since the passing of heritable traits from ancestors to descendants is a known and observed fact of biology.

Unless and until you can develop an answer that unites the use of the methodologies of evolutionary science [taxonomy, radiometric dating, "biomarkers," and reduced carbon graphite analysis] by petroleum geologists with an alternative hypothesis that explains the success of these methods in terms other than those petroleum geologists use, you fail to meet the challenge. In the singular case of their use of taxonomy you must answer the tracing of heritable traits across generations as made evident in the fossil record, which petroleum geologists view as validation of the science of taxonomy and is why the utilize it in their work.

You have not met the challenge r9etb. You have first failed to answer it and then, falsely, denied that the challenge is real. That is all you have done.

Let's try this one more time, from a different direction. Please note, BTW, that I am not arguing for or against evolution here. I'm trying very hard to maintain a narrow focus on the usefulness of your challenge.

Here, again, is your challenge, as it first appeared on this thread:

I repeat here the same challenge I have put up time and again on these Crevo threads. If you believe the Theory of Evolution has been undermined by new scientific evidence, then explain to us how Petroleum Geologists look for oil and why they actually succeed in finding it. The only answer I have ever received to this challenge is a statement that went something like "Geologists succeed in finding oil for reasons other than the ones they believe explain their success."

To be germane to the debate, your challenge must satisfy a basic test:

The methodology used by petroleum geologists would have to change if the theory of evolution was proved wrong tomorrow.

If the methodology was still applicable, even after the theory of evolution was proved wrong, then your challenge has no power to address the debate between evolution and alternate theories.

Now let's see if your challenge passes the test.

First, let us simply grant that the taxonomic data are an accurate depiction of age and order. Let's say that the charts are exactly correct, and that no species were misplaced, and all dates are accurate to within 218 years.

Next, let's suppose that our famous alien race lands tomorrow, and reveals to us that the appearance of important features of the taxonomic data -- new classes and orders of plants and animals, say -- were a result of science experiments carried out by various alien races over the past several hundred million years.

The tale told by our aliens addresses the major characteristics of what you've described of the methodology:

1. Old things and new things are observably separated within the geological strata.
2. Certain things appear at certain times: they're not all randomly scattered.

Our scenario thus provides an alternate explanation for the data used by petroleum geologists, which we've granted is accurate and correct.

Now let's apply our test: would the fact that aliens were responsible for much of the taxonomic data cause petroleum geologists to change their methodology?

No, because the data are unchanged, and the correlations between data and oil are likewise unchanged. It's only the explanation for the data that is different.

And thus we see that your challenge is flawed: the methodology is not sensitive to the explanation for the data, but only the data themselves.