RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,06:04   

Hi Henry,

I found the quoted comment funny in several ways (but I've got a weird sense of humour). The snowflake example is sometimes used by defenders of science, e.g. when the IDist claims that nature (more exactly natural laws) can't produce complexity, or not beyond a certain threshold.
However, I did never see this example used to show that ID can't distinguish between living beings and inanimate things.

Then the poster says  
if those design critics are really saying there is no scientifically valid difference
and thus gets it ass backwards. It's not the design critics, it's the IDists who conveniently forget the fact that living beings reproduce.

The best bit imo is this one:  
the difference is understood well enough even irrespective of whether it can be (at this timer) explicitly formulated.

It (reproduction) has been explicitly formulated again and again, they have been slapped with it till their ears rang.

Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]