(December 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You clearly didn’t get my point. The point was that they both admitted that there were two possibilities, creation by naturalistic means, or creation by supernatural means. So that is why disjunctive logic is completely valid in this instance and that is why both of them have used it and that is why I too use it.Ok Statler, I've been following this thread and I thought I'd pipe in on this bit. You are correct that they have both admitted that there were two possibilities, natural vs supernatural creation, and this point I don't argue with. The two are complete opposites, such that if something is not natural, it is supernatural, and vice versa.
What the point I think most people were trying to make is that abiogenesis / Evolution are both possible naturalistic "creation" methods; they are certainly not every single possibility. So whilst you can make the argument that refuting naturalistic creation supports supernatural creation, you cannot hold that refuting evolution or abiogenesis is a support of supernatural creation.
Even if you had disproved evolution and abiogenesis (and I don't think you have), you cannot say anything about the validity of supernatural creation.
