Posted: Jul 28, 2010 12:13 pm
Calilasseia wrote:This one comes courtesy of deadman_932 over at TalkRational.
Since those who erect the "design" assertion think that "design" is allegedly "obvious", and that it's only rejected because those pesky scientists won't accept magic, I've a simple question, courtesy of the aforementioned deadman_932.
No, those pesky scientists don't accept anything other than a naturalistic explanation for the origins and diversity of life.
Their assumption is there must be one, even if the evidence is antithetical to this belief.
Here's a picture of some rocks. The picture is being linked to because it's over 700 pixels wide, and the board software is set not to allow embedding of wide images. One of these rocks is "designed" (it was shaped by human hand). Which one?
This is absolutely cretinous piece of obfuscation. Design inferences work because there is no naturalistic explanation
Digital codes don't just come into being by chance or the laws of physics and chemistry. A rock placed on a beach by a human could have also have been deposited by natural forces. There is a big difference between what Nature can do and what she cannot.