C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Literally, nobody on the planet believes that. Removing a creator from the equation doesn't result in that daft scenario.

Excuse my ignorance I’m sure you have a better example of a non intelligent intervention that could form a fine tuned rocket by chance?

@dj2becker said
Excuse my ignorance I’m sure you have a better example of a non intelligent intervention that could form a fine tuned rocket by chance?

Darwin argued that the innumerable, complex functional adaptations found in organic nature can be explained without recourse to any designing or exerting agency. Your error is to make a weak comparison with the rocket. (An argument that has already been thoroughly refuted).

Processes, such as evolution are not mere 'chance.' It is 'trial and error' that leads to progress, not intelligent design.

I'll let Dawkins confront your ignorance. - "A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye." - Natural selection in contrast, Dawkins continues, has no such foresight: "It has no mind, and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all."

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Darwin argued that the innumerable, complex functional adaptations found in organic nature can be explained without recourse to any designing or exerting agency. Your error is to make a weak comparison with the rocket. (An argument that has already been thoroughly refuted).

Processes, such as evolution are not mere 'chance.' It is 'trial and error' that leads to pr ...[text shortened]... nd no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all."

It is a weak companion to be fair. The human body contains trillions of cells. Some may argue that a single cell displays far more functionality that a spaceship. A spaceship can’t even repair itself. No one would ever suggest that a spaceship could come into existence without intelligent intervention yet some people have no problem believing the human body did. I guess some people have no problem insulting their own intelligence.

@indonesia-phil said
A rocket ship is hardly the same thing as the natural universe, is it? A rocket ship has records of its' manufacture, drawings, calculations, invoices for materials purchased and so on. As far as I'm aware, no such records exist for the making of the natural universe.

One does not have to speculate about how a rocket gets built. But, one certainly does have to speculate about supernatural explanations for the nature of the universe.

dj2becker has been peddling his Rocket Ship rhetorical gimmick over and over again for years and simply blanking out any responses.

Note how your paragraph above regarding evidence was simply ignored and he resorted to his hurricane-in-a-junk-yard rhetorical gimmick instead.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Literally, nobody on the planet believes that. Removing a creator from the equation doesn't result in that daft scenario.

Notice how he didn't really address this response of yours to his daft strawman hurricane-in-a-junk-yard rhetorical gimmick and he simply shifted back to his daft strawman how-can-a-rocket-ship-be-created-by-chance rhetorical gimmick instead.

Indonesia Phil is trying to talk to him too. But, seeing as his dog-eared Rocket Ship gimmick is being deployed for the umpteenth time, I think you are both on a hiding to nothing.

@fmf said
Notice how he didn't really address this response of yours to his daft strawman hurricane-in-a-junk-yard rhetorical gimmick and he simply shifted back to his daft strawman how-can-a-rocket-ship-be-created-by-chance rhetorical gimmick instead.

Indonesia Phil is trying to talk to him too. But, seeing as his dog-eared Rocket Ship gimmick is being deployed for the umpteenth time, I think you are both on a hiding to nothing.

At least this time he didn't use a second account to give 2 thumbs down.

-Removed-

Ha!

-Removed-

😴

@dj2becker said
😴

Why did you log on to this website and then post on this thread ~ in reply to me ~ using the account called "mariekeXIV"?

@fmf said
Why did you log on to this website and then post on this thread ~ in reply to me ~ using the account called "mariekeXIV"?

What do you think happened?

@dj2becker said
What do you think happened?

I think you logged into an inactive account solely for the purpose of giving posters a second thumbs down. (And then absentmindedly posted to the forums while logged into that second account).

Sorry if I hadn't made that clear.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think you logged into an inactive account solely for the purpose of giving posters a second thumbs down. (And then absentmindedly posted to the forums while logged into that second account).

Sorry if I hadn't made that clear.

You’re wrong.

@dj2becker said
What do you think happened?

I am not interested in your stalling counter-question. I am interested in how you explain what you did.