zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. yters+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-04-27 01:04:25
That's essentially the same kind of explanation as 'god did it'.
replies(1): >>cambal+Nf
◧
2. cambal+Nf[view] [source] 2020-04-27 04:29:50
>>yters+(OP)
I dont know if you are being serious, but if you are, Dawkins books are pretty good (The blind watchmaker,or the Ancestors tale).
replies(1): >>yters+211
◧◩
3. yters+211[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-27 13:54:57
>>cambal+Nf
I will have to check them out, but I remember being unimpressed with the table of contents. Looks like it will be more handwaving.
replies(1): >>cambal+qy1
◧◩◪
4. cambal+qy1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-27 17:27:56
>>yters+211
Ah OK, you are not being serious, fair enough. Magic god did it all.
replies(1): >>yters+xQ1
◧◩◪◨
5. yters+xQ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-27 19:21:53
>>cambal+qy1
I am being serious. I just purchased Dawkin's book "Blind Watchmaker". My point is no explanation should amount to "magic X did it" whether X is god, evolution, the earth spirit, aliens, etc. All the above are bad explanations.

It is not scientific to substitute one bad explanation for another. The scientific approach is to say we don't know, and then look for a good explanation.

[go to top]