Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 146 of 385 (563230)
06-04-2010 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by BobTHJ
06-03-2010 7:26 PM


You don't, of course. But I'm not referring to the supernatural as a testable hypothesis. I'm referring to it as a prior assumption in cases where no naturalistic assumption is reasonable.
Such as? Or if one cannot find a natural solution invoke magic? There is not anything that cannot have a reasonable natural assumption.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 7:26 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by BobTHJ, posted 06-06-2010 7:36 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 195 of 385 (563801)
06-06-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by BobTHJ
06-06-2010 7:36 PM


The only naturalistic hypothesis I have seen put forth that is not intelligent design oriented is abiogenesis - the probability of which is astronomical. Laboratory experiments have consistently failed to provide even the slightest evidence for it. In a case such as this a supernatural assumption seems far more reasonable.
Except the creationist view is still abiogenesis, except they start with nothing and invoke magic, at least the scientific hypothesis starts with material ie simple chemical substances and uses natural catalysts, ie: radioactivity, lightning & ultraviolet radiation. as opposed to some sky daddy invoking magic.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by BobTHJ, posted 06-06-2010 7:36 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024