Joined: Mar. 2008
|Quote (olegt @ Oct. 19 2012,06:53)|
|gpuccio's design inference is an argument from ignorance: |
|The second part of the question, for us in ID, is point 2): is a credible mechanism known that can explain the string? The answer for us is simple: it does not exist, because no real explicit and verifiable mechanism has been proposed for this string. So, we infer design.|
1. I believe something, that makes it a fact.
2. We don't know how feature X evolved, that means it has been designed.
Gpuccio is the most literate and knowledgeable of the UD tribe. It is useful to pin him down and get him to admit he simply doesn't accept scientific reasoning.
I do agree with his oft repeated claim that even a five year old can see the obviousness of his invisible continuously acting designer.
”The 2nd law states how systems work when no intelligence is involved.”