's Theoryof implies that nothing can go fasterthan the speed of light.


The argument as to which is more parsimonious is going to require much more rigorous maths. I think you possibly found the first tep in a possible proof, and are assuming you are at an end point. You are treating the atheists arguments like they are very shallow when in fact they are highly sophisticated. You argument currenlty lacks their sophistication. This needs to be played out with the real numbers by someone that can do the statistics rigorously, and show one argument to be more parimonious than the other. The students you lecture give deference to your expertise, but in the real academic intellectual community there is no deference to anything but the argument itself. If you don’t put all the meat into this argument, all it can be is pseudo-intellectual intelligent design propaganda. I have not read the Infidels blog, and don;pt know who participates, but I don’t see how no one has put this quite simple opposition to you yet even over many years. Dawkins and Harris are quite opne minded, but this is still much too fluffy to debate them with.


Satisfied customers are saying