>Bertvan:
> >> Most IDs have nothing against "natural forces".
>
>FMAJ
> >Fine, then it is clear that there is no real value in ID?
> >But I would like you to support your argument.
>
>Bertvan:
>ID is obviously of no value to you. Other scientists are finding it a useful
>concept.
Chris
Really!??! Can you name even *one* scientist who finds it a
*scientifically* useful concept? Who has done *anything* that could not
just as easily (or *more* easily!) been done without it? Is there *any*
scientific fact that has been discovered on the basis of the "concept" of ID?
You seem to spend most of your posts making bizarre claims, but virtually
*none* presenting any factual support for them.
>Why should you object? As for IDs having nothing against "natural
>forces", those on the ID discussion board acknowledge any "natural force" for
>which there is compelling scientific evidence. Everyone's definition of
>"compelling" varies, but I find their arguments more reasonable than those
>who dispute them.
Chris
Have you bothered to do *anything* to make yourself qualified to evaluate
such arguments? Have you *ever* bothered to study such things as logical
fallacies, or reading up on the basic factual material involved (i.e.,
genetics, etc.)? Do you understand that, because something is somewhat
*like* something that is designed, it is not necessarily therefore to be
assumed to *be* designed? Can you even give a coherent description of the
differences that you think must be present to distinguish between design
and non-design? If there *were* only random variations (by the trillions
and trillions and trillions), combined with natural selection, what do you
claim would be the result? Would it look like something that was not designed?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 00:41:04 EDT