RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 26, 2015 at 4:56 pm
(This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 5:07 pm by Chas.)
(January 26, 2015 at 3:32 pm)Heywood Wrote:(January 26, 2015 at 11:27 am)Chas Wrote: No, no one who understands evolution would say that. Not one.
No true scotsmans would have failed in this thread as hard as you have failed Chas. You can't go one post without committing a blunder.
Please find an evolutionary biologist who said anything of the kind.
And, no, that was not a NTS fallacy.
(January 26, 2015 at 3:44 pm)Heywood Wrote:(January 25, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Surgenator Wrote: This is not how evolution works, and this one of many reasons your automobile example fails.
If you need example of automobile evolution that looks more closely like biological evolution, take a look at this:
How is that an example of a 'system'?
While you might loosely call this 'evolution', it bears no resemblance to biological evolution. It is a silly example that does nothing to support your argument.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.