Friday, February 20, 2009
Bad Arguments for ID # 2362
Science means the testability of a hypothesis -- well, until a scientist can bring me a dragonfly he created out of organic soup, I'll stick with Intelligent Design and an intelligent designer. My faith is built upon better evidence than a king-sized, fossilized soup bone -- or even DNA look-alikes.
Letssee: until a scientist can bring me a star he created out of hydrogen, I won't believe the sun is powered by nuclear fusion generated at its core by gravity, I'll stick with Intelligent Burning and an intelligent burner ...
.
.
Comments:
<< Home
"...well, until a scientist can bring me a dragonfly he created out of organic soup, I'll stick with Intelligent Design and an intelligent designer."
But wouldn't a scientist deliberately making a dragonfly out of organic soup be precisely an example of intelligent design?
Makes a perverted kind of sense in a way. If you bring me evidence of evolution, I'll believe in ID. But I'll believe in evolution if you bring me evidence of ID.
But wouldn't a scientist deliberately making a dragonfly out of organic soup be precisely an example of intelligent design?
Makes a perverted kind of sense in a way. If you bring me evidence of evolution, I'll believe in ID. But I'll believe in evolution if you bring me evidence of ID.
# posted by 
: 9:36 AM
: 9:36 AM
"Computer scientists at MIT tell us that ... there isn't enough time to develop a human eye by trial and error ..."
Just like the rocket scientists at NASA proved that the sun stood still for Joshua.
Tom S.
Post a Comment
Just like the rocket scientists at NASA proved that the sun stood still for Joshua.
Tom S.
# posted by : 11:57 AM
: 11:57 AM << Home
