Joined: Feb. 2012
|Quote (Texas Teach @ June 21 2012,20:02)|
|Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)|
|Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)|
|I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing. |
Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?
Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.
One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.
Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.
I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.
As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life. Anything else is (ir)religious assumptions masquerading as science; atheism is a cheap tuxedo.
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran