Joined: July 2007
|I continually ask creationists two questions. The first is simple.|
|Do you understand that even if you completely and totally discredit evolution right here, right now, it doesn’t mean that your notions of creationism are correct?|
And I always tell Kevin that 1- we are not trying to discredit "evolution". Rather we are just pointing out the obvious flaws in the blind watchmaker thesis. 2- In order to reach a design inference we must first dispense with the blind watchmaker thesis. ya see Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, and the explanatory filter, mandate that approach. If you actually knew something about science you would have known that.
|The other question I routinely ask is|
|OK, you win. Evolution (or other science) is wrong. Now what? How does ID/creationism/etc. describe phenomenon x?|
It all depends on what it is. Science is context specific there Kevin. Again that is something you would have known had you any understanding of science.
Take Stonehenge. Obviously mother nature can produce rocks and rock formations. However there is something about Stonehenge that makes us infer mother nature didn't do it. IOW the investigation is different than any purely geological survey. The design inference adds something, ie designers, a purpose, ie a new can of worms. Studying it as a purely geological formation wouldn't have any of those questions. And it would be a waste of time.
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t
simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
I usually underestimate my abilities