Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show me the intelligence ...
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 70 (78314)
01-13-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
01-13-2004 8:02 PM


But snowflakes and fingerprints first need a Creation to take place in. So they do need God's design - the Creation.
By that reasoning it's not possible for anything, natural or otherwise, to not be designed. Ergo you've proposed an unfalsifiable model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 01-13-2004 8:02 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 10:08 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 70 (78540)
01-14-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
01-14-2004 10:08 AM


But is it wrong?
Impossible to say. It's unfalsifiable.
Is unfalsifiable a bad thing?
Yes. And unfalsifiable theory explains nothing and is of no use, regardless of whether or not it's "right". Because there's no potential situation where it could be definitively refuted, there's no way to know if it's right or not.
How are these things not dependent on a designer, if a designer made everything in the universe?
If every single thing that could exist is the product of design, how would you know if anything is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 10:08 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 70 (79530)
01-19-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by DNAunion
01-19-2004 7:41 PM


I thought external testicles helped keep the sperm cooler.
I think his point is that it's poor design to require sperm production to have to occur at a lower body temperature, necessitating the external testicles.
If I were God, and the guy I had design Woman showed up and was like "well, they're going to have to do this 'mensturation' thing," I'd send him back to the drawing board. But that's just me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by DNAunion, posted 01-19-2004 7:41 PM DNAunion has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-20-2004 4:41 AM crashfrog 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