It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by melatonin
Why not wait? Is saying 'we don't know' such a problem? Or do we need definite answers to all questions, even when we have little insight into them? Is ambiguity and uncertainity such a problem? If it makes you feel better, place god in the gaps, many people do.
That is, it started simple and got more complex over time. And I'm sure you know that fish are suggested to be an evolutionary ancestor. So, if fish can survive without the more complex clotting system we have, it's likely that a fishy ancestor can do the same.
That, essentially, IC-like systems are expected in evolution, and provide no great hurdle or problem. And, further, that IC doesn't even support ID, it's really just an attempt to provide a negative test of evolution, and not really a good one.
So, if we find an IC system. Firstly, it could have evolved. Secondly, it provides no support for ID.
Originally posted by Heronumber0
I have no problem with doubts and gaps but the Design argument , in any shape or form, is the only antidote to a world without God.
melatonin, you are filling the gaps here with your assumptions which are beyond actual proof. Can't you see what I am getting at, without going round and round in circular arguments?
Hmm...I suppose I could agree that IC has problems but let's wait for more evidence to come to light. It is no reason to chuck out a Design argument, of any sort.