Replies

"Comparing it to what? The "theory" that some unspecified entity did X with unknown methods and for inscrutable reasons? This is completely useless because it doesn't tell us what we should observe nor (what's even more important) what we shouldn't observe because such an unspecified designer is compatible with every possible observation. So why should we teach something that is obviously not scientific in science class?" evolution theory is hardly science. The same argument you just put forward can be said about evolution theory.

You expect someone to blindly believe that something as complex as DNA language, just miraculously assembled itself out of nothing? That's not science, that's blind faith as well.

The "theory" that some unspecified entity did X with unknown methods and for inscrutable reasons?

Colorful, but hardly accurate. Inscrutable reasons? the reason is quite clear. If you want to "observe" something, toss a frog in a blender then let the mixture of everything needed for life to create itself sit in the sun. Of course, that would be cheating, but if evolution theory is correct, the frog should remake itself. Or was a complex DNA machine with an assembled instruction language needed to assemble these ingredients correctly. The theory which makes more sense is obvious, and we CAN observe it in action and learn how it works while your waiting for your frog to reconstruct itself.

You expect someone to blindly believe that something as complex as DNA language, just miraculously assembled itself out of nothing? That's not science, that's blind faith as well.

We're talking about evolution, not the ultimate origin of DNA.

Colorful, but hardly accurate. Inscrutable reasons? the reason is quite clear.

So what is the reason that the designer designed life? I notice that you didn't actually provide an explanation.

If you want to "observe" something, toss a frog in a blender then let the mixture of everything needed for life to create itself sit in the sun. Of course, that would be cheating, but if evolution theory is correct, the frog should remake itself.

Why would the theory of evolution suggest such a thing? Be specific.

If you want to "observe" something, toss a frog in a blender then let the mixture of everything needed for life to create itself sit in the sun. Of course, that would be cheating, but if evolution theory is correct, the frog should remake itself.

Wow. Just wow. Please tell me that this statement is either (1) a parody, or (2) the result of a week-long bender on psychotropic drugs.

evolution theory is hardly science.

You can repeat that to yourself over and over, but it isn't going to change the facts.

You expect someone to blindly believe that something as complex as DNA language, just miraculously assembled itself out of nothing?

Argument from incredulity.

but if evolution theory is correct, the frog should remake itself.

Utter nonsense. Evolution theory would posit no such thing. Straw man argument.

Be careful Zach,

The rules of these threads.. are that they get to use all those sorts of analogies (and actually much much worse and more ugly), but you do not, got it?

Remember.. you are up against the greatest minds of the Cosmo-Evo Cult of the flying spaghetti monster /sarc>

If you do then do so at your peril.

Wolf