The Actual Argument for ID

[superluminal]

NO its not...why do you think Kansas had to change the definition of science just to let science acknowledge anything besides naturalistic explanations? I know why, because science by DEFAULT only has naturalistic explanations

Wrong. Kansas changed (and changed back again) because they were being run by idiots. Acknowledging anything that cannot be tested and verified or invalidated is just stupid.

No, this isn't true....ask any scientist they would tell you anything supernatural has no place in science....no place at all...

Of course it dosen't. But if science coud actually measure one of your "supernatural" phenomena and analyze it and repeat it, then it would be science. See how easy that was?

 

[phlogistician]

...That one even redefined "rain" to make a contradiction with my observation about the workings of natural law. Obvious desperation. You are wrong to take it so casually.

So a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop once it's frozen?

Did it evolve into something else then?

 

[leopold]

alright guys, we have a thread on this here:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66665
i suggest that sam merge the two.

 

[S.A.M.]

Intelligent Design and Abiogenesis is not the same

This thread is for those who want to defend ID; the other for those who want to defend/support abiogenesis.

The lines are blurred I admit, in terms of arguments.

 

[iceaura]

So a raindrop ceases to be a raindrop once it's frozen?

A glob of water is not a raindrop until it falls to the ground with a bunch of other raindrops as rain, as far as I'm concerned. Your dictionary may vary. I didn't think I was dealing with a technical term there.

What I like about the argument from flaw and violation of natural principle is the symmetry with argument from perfect design. Full coverage of the field of possibility.

 

[phlogistician]

A glob of water is not a raindrop until it falls to the ground with a bunch of other raindrops as rain, as far as I'm concerned.

Rain is made from raindrops. You seem to be stating that raindrops are something else until they are in a collective.

Either way, raindrops do move upwards when the conditions are right for the formation of hail. This quite simply demonstrates your lack of observation of, and learning about the natural world. You cannot make correct assumptions about the 'natural principle' if you don't pay attention to it.

 

[guthrie]

I don't know if I can spend the time to review all of ID - things are pretty damn busy about now. But I'll try. Won't be for some time tho.

Don't bother. You can do far more productive things with your time.

Besides, all their arguments boil down to "It looks too complex to have evolved, therefore God did it."

That is honestly it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Discussion going nowhere; thread closed. For a sincere discussion, please PM me and I will consider it.