Re: Maybe I am an IDist after all,
- From: TomS <TomS_member@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Jul 2006 07:03:58 -0700
"On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:43:28 +0200, in article
<c9m4b2d9jfm8kq6v1ou01vupih13hu3cqv@xxxxxxx>, Ray stated..."
On 9 Jul 2006 01:04:41 -0700, "Bill Hudson" <oldgeek61-951@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
This is exactly the kind of thing that shows that ID is not, never was,
and never will be scientific. It predicts *everything*.
So if the day should come where ToE can explain *everything*, it will
no longer be scientific either?
ID predicts everything. It predicts, equally well, everything that happens
to be the case as well as everything that doesn't happen.
If predicts mammals with four legs. But if we should ever find a mammal
with five, six, or seven legs - well, that would be a consequence of "design",
wouldn't it?
Unicorns, flying horses, and dragons would be products of intelligent
design.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20
.
- References:
- Maybe I am an IDist after all,
- From: Thought Provoker
- Re: Maybe I am an IDist after all,
- From: Bill Hudson
- Re: Maybe I am an IDist after all,
- From: Ray
- Maybe I am an IDist after all,
- Prev by Date: Re: Maybe I am an IDist after all,
- Next by Date: Re: They don't care
- Previous by thread: Re: Maybe I am an IDist after all,
- Next by thread: Re: Maybe I am an IDist after all,
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
