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: 2647
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2007,11:43   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2007,10:09)
Pixie is destroying Joseph.

The Pixie insists    
Come on, just one specific example to prove me wrong. Simple or complex. Say what the evidence is that would lead you to conclude design, and I will see if I can tell you anything about how it was done.

If Joseph would actually consider this question critically, it might result in a bit of understanding on how artifacts are scientificially studied, the limits to our ability to understand such processes, and how dependent we are on what we have already experienced. The primary methodology of forensics is to compare a particular case to previous instances in order to link the evidence with the method and with the perpetrator. In fact, the identification of the cause of a fire, human or otherwise, is the entire point of fire investigation.

Contrariwise, Intelligent Design.

This game of pressing for the nature of the designer has been tried many times before and it shows the shallowness of those asking the question.

(If you're not familiar with Terry Bisson, don't forget to click the links on "meat" above.)

Thrice Quadrice banned by Uncommon Descent.
Unilateral critic of Affirmations about Uniform Distribution in the Search Space of Proteins

  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]