Posted: Jul 28, 2010 2:35 pm
by Rumraket
Atheistoclast wrote:
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.

Yeah, it's because of that annoying fact we call a lack of evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So pesky they are. And then of course there is the fact that the extant naturalistic explanations make sense, in addition to actually being evidentially supported.
These annoying real-word facts... what ARE we to do with them?

Atheistoclast wrote:Their assumption is there must be one, even if the evidence is antithetical to this belief.

And what, specifically, would this supposed evidence be?

Atheistoclast wrote:
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

No naturalistic explanation for what, exactly?

Atheistoclast wrote:Digital codes don't just come into being by chance or the laws of physics and chemistry.

Simultanously an argument from bare assertion and an argument from ignorance.

Atheistoclast wrote: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.

But we don't care how the rock got there, we care about if you can repeatedly identify whether it was shaped by intelligent designers or just the plain physics of geology and erosion.