Same old argument. Even a very small possibility is not the same thing as impossible, especially if there is a random element in the system. You can’t go from arguing the improbability of an event to arguing that it did not happen, otherwise most of the things that happened in the universe didn’t happen.
ID is more probable than RM and is the better explanation. Time to give it up. Science itself is showing the way.
Computer Science. No further comment needed.
It already did, you just have to pay attention to what it said.
ID either makes the existence of complexity certain or even more improbable depending on whether or not the designer itself emerged from natural processes or is a non-physical eternal being. If it’s the latter, then design can be used to explain any state of complexity and any degree of physical probability rendering the concept of a natural event meaningless. But scientists are never going to agree that natural events don’t exist, so scientifically ID is worthless as an explanation for the simple fact that it can be used to explain anything. There is no point in doing science if they let ID have a foot in the door. In effect ID explains nothing at all since it’s nothing more than a magic wand in the disguise of a working hypothesis. .
No it is not. How probable is your designer? If there is no designer then there is no ID. The Designer must be at least as complex as all the DNA it has designed. Given that more then one species is designed, then the Designer is more complex than any individual species.
C’mon, Buff. You’ve had ten days to think of an answer.buffalo:
So if we have no evidence…then what are we to study?Wozza:
Still missed it…
Can you give me a link to any leftist media that says that life doesn’t begin at conception and that men and women are exactly the same?