Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,19:35)|
|My assertion was that science would not have been hindered if the simliarities we observe in nature today had been considered part of the design paradigm rather than due to common descent.|
You failed to understand nested hierarchies (among other things). You need to go back and actually understand those 29+ evidences you skimmed over and dismissed as pathetic.
It's also typical that you dismissed those links without addressing any of the actual arguments. This further re-enforces the conclusion that you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
Why are all scientific papers based on common descent? Because it was deemed "fact" early on, and everyone based their evolutionary scenarios on that ideology.
Completely, utterly wrong. Common descent makes specific predictions, which are not required for "common design". Not to mention that you have the history wrong too.
Of course if the designer in your "common design" is supernatural, "common design" makes no predictions whatsoever because the designer can, by definition do whatever it damn well pleases. You may as well go the whole hog and accept last Tuesdayism, because it's exactly equivalent. (but don't touch last Thursdayism, that's heresy!)
If you assume your designer is limited by the laws of nature that we observe, you get yourself a mountain of trouble explaining when and how they acted, while at the same time not predicting the same tree of life that we see.