carlsonjok
Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,13:46) | | Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 14 2008,11:38) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,13:28) |
I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible". What I called "impossible" was man's ability to explain what those exact steps were. |
You might want to reconsider this, as your position reduces to incoherence quickly. Because if you don't want to characterize any step as impossible, you implicitly accept that the chemical steps are possible and, thus, render your God superfluous. |
If you provide the steps, I'm sure there will be an abundance of biochemists out there who'll decide whether they are possible or not. It's the ability to provide possible steps that I'm predicting will be impossible. |
I am not so much amazed that you are using an argument from ignorance (which has a storied history in creationist rhetoric) as I am that you freely admit as such. I stand in awe.
--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)
|
