A proof against ID and Creationism

Hello Jeremy,A warm welcome to EvC from me also. I hope your stay will be beneficial for your understanding of many things concerning science in general, and evolution in particular.Let me pick out just one thing you said, and comment on it: This would seem strange to me too, if I didn't know better. There is something wrong in your statement. You are taking something for granted that is not true. But I would like you to find out for yourself what it is. To help you, I made a list:

• We have scientists and other extremely intelligent people;
• We have a theory they came up with;
• We have "something that in very few instances in nature is beneficial";
• and that "has never yielded a product that is different in scientific classification besides in species";
• and that this theory is based on.

Ask yourself about each of these points: is it true? Check for each of them how you know whether or not it is true. Also check if there are other ways of knowing it. If you find some information, see if you can verify it somewhere else, somewhere independent of your first source.If you want me to simply point it out for you, just say so, and I'll oblige. But you'll be much better off if you find the answer for yourself. {edited in arachnophilia's suggestion}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 13-Oct-2005 09:27 PM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Good idea, I've edited my post.
Thanks.

He means mutations.Let's wait for Jeremy before we discuss this any further.

Robin, I may have sounded a bit curt. I did not mean to put you off. Sorry.

Robin, we want him to stay, not drive him insane.

Could you tell us how you arrived at that number?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Please do something about that colour, it's hurting my eyes and I can hardly read what it says.

You quote a number of definitions for each of the five terms you want defined. For instance, there are three definitions for 'universe' and no less than nine for 'design'. But you forgot to tell us which ones you are going to use. You in fact make the very mistake you complain about, i.e. not being clear in your terms. (Well, to be fair, you came half-way.) Why should we need to accept that there was a causal agent? Why can't the universe be uncaused? After all, your causal agent is uncaused, as you assert further on, and you justify this by saying that this causal agent is not bound by the law of causality because it exists outside the universe. Well, there's one other thing that necessarily exist outside the universe, and that's the universe itself. So, by your reasoning, the universe as a whole is not bound by the law of causality either. And if that is true, then there is no need for a creator.{added by edit: I see that Modulous has made my points before me. Well done, Modulous, it's nice to see one's thoughts confirmed.}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-Apr-2006 03:41 PM

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.