Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,20:42)|
|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.
The blindwatchmaker hypothesis that you are the only person on this Earth that uses it.
2- In order to reach a design inference we must first dispense with the blind watchmaker thesis.
Since the blind watchmaker thesis doesn't exist, that's done. next?
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.
Poor Joe. Why don't you actually use the EF to do something. Well. we can hope that's what's coming next.
|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.
Um no. It's not. You must not understand science. Science is a PROCESS, not a conclusion.
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.
What is that thing that makes us infer design? How is it determined? Can it be applied to anything? Can I give you a few things and see if you can infer design or not design?
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.
Then what are the designers? Where are they? What is the mechanism of their action? When do they act? How? Why?
Studying it as a purely geological formation wouldn't have any of those questions. And it would be a waste of time.
BTW: Are you going to go correct gpuccio? Because you and him are saying the completely opposite things.
Of course, you and Behe are saying completely opposite things too. Going to correct him?
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.