To: Fester Chugabrew
I don't know anyone alive, save for a few nut cases, who think "everything that could possibly be known is known." The argument has to to with probabilities and statistics.
Argument from incredulity is not a statistical argument. It's a blank assertion that a person's inability to comprehend an event is evidence against the event. A statistical argument would rely upon the calculated statistical probability, not the arguer's personal inability to comprehend.
622 posted on
11/16/2005 10:00:21 PM PST by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
I hardly think the phyisical attributes of DNA to be devoid of statistical/mathematical analysis, and thus arguments pointing toward the reasonable inference of intelligent design.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson