User talk:Dogrun81

Moved from Intelligent design talk page
I take issue with the claim that one cannot test for evidence of design. Let's look at an example that has probably been argued before: Stonehenge.

There is no explicit documentation (that I know of) of the construction of Stonehenge. Yet the structures are presumed to have been constructed by human civilization. This is based purely on the characteristics of the structure itself.

If a structure or device can be inferred to be the product of design purely based on either the complexity or obvious evidences of tooling or handiwork, then it cannot be summarily stated that intelligent design is not a viable explanation as an origin.

The exclusion of the Intelligent Design theory of origins from the mainstream scientific community is based on the assumption that there cannot possibly be a designer. The implications from the existence of a designer are irrelevant to the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogrun81 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 July 2007


 * Dogrun81, you've dropped by a few Creationist article discussion pages, and have thrown out arguments that have been discussed ad nauseum in the past. If you would read Occam's razor, you can see that the simplest answer is often the best.  Stonehenge was built by humans, because there is no evidence that it could be built by anything else.  Moreover, science does not presume the existence of supernatural forces, because they simply cannot be tested.  I am confident that every natural or unnatural thing can be described through natural law.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Orangemarlin, you have made the points that I have been trying to:


 * "The simplest answer is often the best." The simplest answer is a designer, not that the world was created through billions of years of chance out of nothing.


 * "There is no evidence that it could be built by anything else." We constantly hear from Darwinists that there is a huge lack of evidence in the fossil record, and that we do not have verified explanations for the development of most of the biological functions. We certainly don't know that matter could come into existence out of nothing.


 * "[S]cience does not presume the existence of supernatural forces." Correct, but when the simplest solution is a supernatural one, modern science automatically discredits it and claims that it is impossible. Dogrun81 02:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dogrun81, think of it this way. We have not yet found any evidence of a designer. Maybe someday we will be clever enough to think of a way to test for this, and find it. But we have not found it yet. And if you accept miracles or a designer as an answer to any place in science where we are stumped, then we will make no more progress in science or technology, which is exactly what happened to our friends the Muslims who had the most advanced science and technology on planet earth 1000 years ago, when they fell prey to the same argument you are making. Now look at them.--Filll 02:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem of having few peer reviewed articles criticizing evolution is that any such would-be articles are generally not accepted by mainstream scientific journals. And the authors of such articles have been repeatedly attacked or otherwise marginalised. One example: Dogrun81 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)