Richard Dobson wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>> in article 9S4qf.3035$[email protected], Bryan Hackney at
>>> [email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 23:28:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ID and macro-evolution should both be hauled to the trash heap. They
>>>> have
>>>> exactly the same amount of physical evidence in support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> oh really? i didn't know that "macro"-evolution required the
>>> establishment
>>> of a deity, something kinda hard to measure with scientific instruments.
>>> the *theory* of (macro|micro|whatever) Darwinian evolution and natural
>>> selection has holes in the fossil record, unanswered questions, and
>>> parts
>>> that will be revised in the future (meaning those parts, now generally
>>> accepted are *wrong*), but its amount of physical evidence is not zero.
>>> until some scientist makes a "God-detector", ID and Creationism have
>>> *zero*
>>> physical evidence.
>>>
>> Kind of depends on your viewpoint. One could argue that all of
>> creation is evidence.
>
>
> Maybe, but it seems mostly to be evidence that, given enough time
> (infinity?), a random process (e.g. quantum jitter) can, at least once,
> produce something extra-ordinary and, at least in the short-term,
> non-reversible. Indeed we only need it to happen once, and all the
> evidence indicates that indeed it has happened at least once - we are
> here, observing it. And in a few years, we should know if the
> delightfully named "God particle" (Higgs boson) exists. Somehow,
> particles exist, in very, um, particular forms, with and without mass,
> and given the extra-ordinariness of this, the emergence of the cell from
> a similar random process should be less surprising. Intuitively we might
> suppose the existence of particles without mass to be the weird part,
> but in practice scientists are struggling more to explain the particles
> ~with~ mass.


One might argue that particle accelerators evolved to create sub atomic
particles.


>
> In the meantime, ID has a real problem (among many others) in that its
> founding premise is that something is intrinsically inexplicable; which
> is different from acknowledging that something hasn't been explained
> yet, and which is totally opposite from actually explaining anything!
>
> So so far, the best evidence for the existence of God is the existence
> of randomness; without which was not any thing made that was made.
>
> On which note, I wish a Happy Solstice to everyone, and a Happy
> Christmas too to those for whom that is meaningful.

Perhaps in a parallel universe.

>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>