Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 9/04 3:29pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "The difference between my story and yours..." on 10/ 4/04 2:39pm
>The difference is that to make your point, you had to
>construct a highly unlikely hypothetical situation,
>and then try to guess (incorrectly) how a scientist
>would react to it.
No, I wasn't guessing how a scientist would react to it. While the situation was hypothetical, the principles are the same. (See the last paragraph of this post.)
>My story is simply a parody of the way ID actually
>came to be.
>
>Yours is complete fiction.
Yours is fiction as well. It ignores that many millions of minutes have passed (note my parody of the "RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE" remark) and we still have unresolved problems, continued analysis of biochemical systems under ID adherents, the evidence adduced and argued for ID theory etc.
My story, incidentally, is a parody of how abiogenesis came to be. We didn't know how the heck such complexity could be formed naturally. Further research revealed that life was even more sophisticated, has revealed numerous problems for abiogenesis, and yet the old paradigm is accepted despite the existence of a new paradigm that solves and predicts such problems. And the rejection of the old paradigm in favor of the new is dismissed as being "lazy." Can you understand why I’d be a bit suspicious of the old paradigm?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
