OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 01 2015,08:06) | | Quote | News: Think about your own closet, a designed system (if you are not an utter slob), and you will see what I mean:
Possible classifications of junk that is not trash:
1. I will need it later, but it seems like junk now (snow shovel).
2. I may need it later, and it seems like junk now (snorkel).
3. I will likely never need it but the by-laws require me to have one (2 50 litre bottles of water).
4. I can’t imagine needing this but you never know (hibachi and charcoal bricks).
5. I don’t need it but it is too much trouble/expense to get rid of (awkward shelves built into the wall).
6. I used to need it but can’t make up my mind to get rid of it yet (clothes from younger days).
7. I don’t need it but it has intrinsic value. (The bread machine my sister left here when she moved.)
8. Stuff you are planning to give to the Sally Ann, in a bag, but they haven’t called by yet.
9. Trash. (Candy wrappers on the floor, the pink second copies of the dry cleaner’s invoices (never detached), dead house fly.) |
Of course, this argument only makes sense if you accept common descent, that the "junk" in a primordial genome will be useful to descendant organisms. This is one of the strange features of ID, most of the time they argue against common descent, but will then make arguments which implicitly depend on common descent.
This explains why no one will ever answer the question: Is it plausible that we will ever show that rabbits lived in the Cambrian? They know in the back of their minds that there is a succession of forms, but can't admit it at the front of their minds. |
This list is oddly specific...
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
