Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:50:16 GMT
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:26:59 -0700, Bob Monsen <rcsurname@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Your analogy assumes that intelligent design is false, like spontaneous
>generation of life.
It's simply not possible to evaluate it, since it's not been couched
into language from which rigorous, quantitative deductions can be made
and tested. Folks can no more assume ID is false than they can assume
that my polka-dotted monster in my garage is false. It's meaningless
and false/true simply doesn't bear on it.
Jon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: Bob Monsen
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- References:
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: Jonathan Kirwan
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: Jonathan Kirwan
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: Jonathan Kirwan
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: Jonathan Kirwan
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: Bob Monsen
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: John Woodgate
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- From: Bob Monsen
- Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- Prev by Date: Re: digital electronics design
- Next by Date: Re: Strange SMPS configuration. Can some decipher it for me.
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|