Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 12 2009,17:17)|
| Front-loading requires omniscience in the same way that successful DNA encoding does.|
That's your conclusion, which you are assuming.
|Also, (to use your argument), front-loading happened billions of years ago - so how can we know that all the genetic "spit-swapping" that went on back then didn't produce a super-genome from which all others descended?|
We have a fair idea of the causes of mutations, and what rate they happen at. Based on that alone, "front loading" fails without massive, unjustifiable special pleading.
|I don't care if my argument is scientific or not, I don't care if it contributes anything to the empirical research of methodological naturalists, I especially don't care if those who embrace methodological naturalism reject it, I only care if it's true.|
How would such "truth" be more relevant than last Tuesdayism ?
|I guess he feels he's winning our imaginary debate.|
Some of us enjoy highlighting choice bits of The Argument Regarding Design in your posts. Your non-response when the obvious absurdity of your position is pointed out is certainly noted, but does not detract from the enterprise! I would be shocked if anyone here (except you) believes you've made rational argument, never mind a compelling one. The "debate" is an attempt corner you into realizing how astoundingly bad your arguments are, or in the alternative, to have a laugh.