reply to post by Key2life
If you can't conceive in principle of how it can be done then don't say it is possible. It only becomes possible when it is done.
Claiming design and thus all living things are evidence of design and thus design has invariably been accomplished and thus possible, is a moot
argument. It's speculation; You first need to rule out all other things as well as prove that this designer existed and did the designing and not
some other designer.
If something is unknown then nothing can be known about it until it becomes known. You can't presume something doesn't exist unless knowledge
proves it doesn't.
And yet you contradictorily proclaim that ID should be treated as if it were known to be a true actuality? I'm not saying it is not possible, but
that there is no reason to assume it true without evidence for design. Poking at holes in current scientific knowledge of evolutionary theory is not
evidence for design. It's evidence for one's ability to poke at other peoples research and theories and an inability for on to do their own work and
research.
How do you know that what ever sent evolution in motion wasn't a program designed by ID. Philosophically it is possible since it can't be
proven or unproven. It isn't science yet but that may be our own ignorance.
It is possible, and it's equally possible that the universe developed from the bowel movements of a pink unicorn. Should we treat that equally as if
it were science simply because it hasn't been *ruled out*?
The ID I speak about is much different then what has been proposed. The ID I speak of is like a programmer who set the Universe in motion. It
created the basic laws of physics and used the quantum principles to set it all in motion.
I have a somewhat similar concept I developed in a separate thread. I don't treat this speculation as if it were fact nor do I demand others to
accept it as if it were true nor do I demand that all children should be taught this concept. It's speculation as there is no evidence for it to be
true.
|