andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>  From reading this thread and others before this, I know that you have a 
> rather different idea of what evolution theory comprises than what is 
> common in my surroundings.

  That's curious, given that I have made absolutely no claims about the
evolution theory. (The only claim I have made even remotely related to
that is the generic claim that it's perfectly valid to doubt a theory,
any theory, even if you can't offer any plausible alternative. Note,
however, that I'm not saying *I* doubt some theory here. I'm just saying
that it's *valid* to doubt a theory.)

  People tend to read too much between the lines.

> >   Similar physiology between animals and humans doesn't prove evolution.
> > It only proves that there's similar physiology between animals and humans.
> > (*Evidence* is different from *proof*.)
> > 
> The physiology is so mind boggling similar that the only explanation is 
> a common descent.

  "I can't think of any other explanation" is no proof. Really strong
evidence yes, but no proof.

> You can not *disprove* that at some point in time both 
> species were independently created. But why would the creator copy 
> everything from one design to another, including all the bugs, patches 
> and obsolete code?

  Now you are talking philosophically. Philosophical arguments are no
proof of anything.

> Again, there is no way to disprove such a lack of 
> creativity, but why would you replace a perfectly acceptable explanation 
> by a rabbit out of a hat?

  The simplest explanation is not always the correct explanation.
Simplicity is no proof.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message