(January 14, 2016 at 12:52 pm)AAA Wrote:(January 14, 2016 at 11:56 am)Stimbo Wrote: You don't make a case for your own position by pointing at the limitations if the opposition, even if they are genuine limitations anyway - which is something else that's only been declared and not demonstrated.
So I ask again: how would you set about testing for this designer of yours?
That's exactly how you compare competing hypothesis. We know that a designer could explain the specified sequence. We don't know that mutation could explain it. You can't demonstrate either in a lab because they both rely on a special, non-repeatable event. Laboratory science can't study historical events
Ok, so let's go with the idea that, as you put it, "a designer could explain the specified sequence". Now how would you set about demonstrating that? By what means would you eliminate ambiguity, to be as sure as possible that your hypothesis is representative of reality?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
