Skip to comments.Warnings from the Ivory Towers
Posted on 10/11/2005 7:27:16 AM PDT by Valin
click here to read article
> A being outside the natural laws of the physical universe can create life ex nihlo. We've just verified the existence of God and ID. Fair enough?
Ahhh... no. To verify the existence of God, you would have to by showing that God is possible. Giving what some of this hypothetical God's properties would be is *not* relevant. And the level of evidence required for showing God-possibility is substantially higher than that for showing that small mutations are possible.
> Why would the undirected evolution of the TTSS into the eubacterial flagellum be a kick in the shin to the ToE?
You believe the existence of God is not possible?
> Why would the undirected evolution of the TTSS into the eubacterial flagellum be a kick in the shin to the ToE? . . .It wouldn't.
It would. What does the TTSS do?
> You believe the existence of God is not possible?
I believe it is undemonstrated. And given the vast array of conflicting properties this "God" person is supposed to ahve, being anythign from Hairy Thunderer to Cosmic Muffin (2 points to whoever gets *that*), it sounds more liek something people jsut made up.
And since we can demonstrate fairly conclusively that people a re perfectly capable of makign stuff up... and making up stuff that other people will *believe* - then there is already a simpler explanation. Does this mean "God" doesn;t exist? Nope. Just that the hypothesis is not backed up by hard evidence. And given the scope of the hypothesis, the evidence woudl ahve to be pretty substantial. Imagine if I told you that I was capable of travelling backwards through time, raising the dead, and creating individuals and whole civilizatiosn out of thin air. You would, I hope, demand some pretty stout evidence.
If, however, you don't need that level of proof, I can give you my payPal account name, and you can pray to me proper in $100 increments.
> It would. What does the TTSS do?
If you get near a point, please, by all means make it.
Like the evolution of the TTSS into the flagellum.
Those ignorant of science are just as likely to fall for Velikovsky as for Ron Hubbard.
Prediction: No creationist will back away from Manzari's claims even after it's busted as thoroughly as Rather's was.
>> I believe it is undemonstrated.
> Like the evolution of the TTSS into the flagellum.
Sigh. Again, you equate God with a minor mutation. Well, that's your theology. Have fun with it.
Or Behe. Or Gore.
Still awaiting the return of the World Ice Theory...
Again, you're misunderstanding. We're not discussing the Divinity of God but the meanings of words and the nature of belief.
Now, God has demonstrated his existence in recorded history. Would you agree with that?
> God has demonstrated his existence in recorded history. Would you agree with that?
Not without evidence better than second-hand testimony or someone's say-so. Otherwise, I'll accept the "demonstrations" of Odins existence rather more readily.
This has drifted well off from the topic at hand, and has been sripped of all interesting or useful content. So, unless you have a point to make, I've other things to do.
Are you sure?
Yes, i've noticed that. It's more important that they make stuff up and keep on going regardless. These poeple aren't trustworthy.