hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/15/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > { From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) } > > > { From: Colin.Rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA } > > > > > { From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) } > > > > > > "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! > > > > As has been said before, that is not a scientific proof. > > > > What I want is a scientific PROOF of Creationism. Or even a semi-scientific > > plea for Creationism. What I don't want is some mystical gobbly-gook about > > "Design". From anybody, not just Dan. > > Wait a minute!! You want scientific PROOF or EVIDENCE? > There is a big difference!! You know that you CAN'T give me > scientific PROOF of evolution, so why would you ask me to give > you PROOF of creation. > > Design is EVIDENCE of a designer! It is NOT PROOF of a creator, I > will acknowledge. > > You can call it gobbly-gook if you like, but it is perfectly reasonable > to conclude that design would imply a designer. Webster's thought so! As was pointed out before, design is evidence of designer(s). However, you have consistently fail to point out just what consistutes a design characteristic. I have already brought up several questions about this, and you have consistently failed to answer any of them. Dan, answering a few questions about something which is so obvious to you should not be so difficult or so time consuming that you would choose to ignore them. Rather than asking you for an excuse for not answering my questions, I am once again asking you to simply respond to what you have been ignor- ing. Maybe the next post will give you a little more incentive. ___________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }