Search results

Ugh! I saw that auto-correct and forgot to fix it. I'm sure you get that lot, though!

Here's another way to say what Eightcrackers and Whatsisface are saying: When you say that "all men know there is a god," and use those Bible verses to back that up, those Bible verses actually provide no support whatsoever for your claim, because all the Bible verse are doing are re-stating...

Not ever claim needs to have every step or detail known in order to rationally accept the claim. We can see a broken guardrail, a steep cliff, and a car upside down at the bottom, and not have to know how many times the car flipped over in order to know that the car went down the cliff. But...

You made this claim: Rossum is asking you to back up your claim.

What are some of the ways that science determines intelligent causation?

You're right; the venom is an example of convergent evolution. I was thinking of laying eggs as not being convergent evolution, and didn't remember the venom even though I copied and pasted that part. My bad.

When I originally read what she wrote, I did not take the designer to be Yahweh, because the conversation before that point did not specify the god of the Bible as the designer, but I see now that it's probable that that is what she meant.

Detectives investigating murders that they do not witness sometimes rightly conclude that the murder was done by a person and sometimes they conclude that the cause of death was natural causes. So what is your point?

The platypus is not an example of convergent evolution. This source says

I will grant that if you define your god to be more powerful than anything, then it can't make something more powerful. However, this started here: The problem is whether we are taking about an unidentified designer, or are we talking about some specific god? AFAIK, ID makes a point to not...

Who exactly is "they" (originally mentioned by you as "others")?

You brought it up. I'm not doing your work for you.

So if I can make something more powerful than I, why can't a god make something more powerful than it?

They can actually come watch me make it, though.

I can (in principle) make a machine that is more powerful than I am.

Does the Platypus break the hierarchy?

What evidence do you have that the nested hierarchy is an assumption? How does creating organisms according to their kind require that they exhibit the very same pattern of similarities and differences that we'd see if species had a historical and genealogical relationship only to historical...

Depending on exactly what we mean by "programming," that programming is called education. This is the no true Scotsman fallacy, look it up. "True" is doing no work in that sentence for you. You're just defining a will to be free will, but you don't establish an empirical fact, like whether...

Exactly! That means that direct observation of things that aren't the phenomenon in question - phenomenon like evolution, the big band, a murder that wasn't witnessed, etc. - can still demonstrate that those phenomenon happened. So your previous requirement that we have to observe evolution...

OK