RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 159
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,09:51   

Patrick is confused.  He thinks that the fact that CQ resistance came about in a gradual manner is good for ID.

The interesting thing about the Darwinist commentators on Amazon is that they were so focused on “we must prove Behe to be wrong somehow” that they fail to realize they’re shooting themselves in the foot. If CQ resistance did indeed come about by a 2-part gradual scenario then that does is make this example of the “all-mighty powers of Darwinian mechanisms” even more trivial than before! After all, a direct stepwise scenario is much more likely to occur than one that requires simultaneous changes or an indirect pathway.

IDer: We've found hard limits to the ToE that prove that ID is true without resorting to arguments about how wonderfully complex life is.

Scientist: But your argument is flawed, the thing you're looking at didn't come about in the way you imagined, and Darwinian processes can produce these things easily.

IDer: A - ha!  So Darwinism is false!  Look at how complex life is!

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]