1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsUnlike you, I am aware of what the definition of evolution is. I am not the one in this conversation who needs to read one. It is amazing that, after all my criticisms about how unbelievably lazy you are, that you again give me a link without comment. You can't even be bothered to cut and paste the part of the article you think is relevant. You expect me to read though a lengthy article and try to decipher what part of it you mean for me to read. I think I overestimated your work ethic in my earlier posts.
Okay, I will help you out. Read this:
http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by PatNovakAlthough in this instance the NCSE is well worth reading,...
Unlike, you I am aware of what the definition of evolution is. I am not the one in this conversation who needs to read one. It is amazing that, after all my criticisms about how unbelievably lazy you are, that you again give me a link without comment. You can't even be bothered to cut and paste the part of the article you think is relevant. You expect me to ...[text shortened]... part of it you mean for me to read. I think I overestimated your work ethic in my earlier posts.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit, membership
organization providing information and resources for schools, parents, and concerned citizens
working to keep evolution and climate science in public school science education. We educate
the press and public about the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding
the teaching of evolution and climate change, and supply needed information and advice to
defend good science education at local, state, and national levels. Our 5000 members are
scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens with diverse religious and political affiliations.
Originally posted by lauseyThat's right. Evilution is only a theory based on guess work.
He is a little like Walter White, but this dude explains the differences between hypothesis, theory and fact rather well. To need to reserve half an hour of your time to watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbpM9LYaQys
Originally posted by lauseyBelieving in evilution is like believing all the parts that make up a computer, monitor, and printer could miraculously create themselves and then assemble themselves and make a program to create more parts and assembly them to make more computers, monitors, and printers without the input of an intelligent designer. I would call that person a numbnuts. A moron like me believes in the intelligent designer.
You are right, you are a moron.
Originally posted by RJHinds"A moron like me believes in the intelligent designer."
Believing in evilution is like believing all the parts that make up a computer, monitor, and printer could miraculously create themselves and then assemble themselves and make a program to create more parts and assembly them to make more computers, monitors, and printers without the input of an intelligent designer. I would call that person a numbnuts. A moron like me believes in the intelligent designer.
This just in: Morons worldwide are protesting this insult to their intelligence. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357That may be so, but the numbnuts that believes in evilution is much lower on the intelligence scale. I doubt one can get any lower in intelligence than a numbnuts that believes in evilution, because no intelliegence is allowed in evilution.
"A moron like me believes in the intelligent designer."
This just in: Morons worldwide are protesting this insult to their intelligence. 🙂
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.discovery.org/expelled/
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is of course a bad analogy, but even so, an intelligent designer is not immune from this argument. If you are going to argue that something is too complex to form on its own, this argument has to be applied to everything, including the intelligent designer. A being capable of creating everything has to be the most complex thing in existence. So using your argument, an intelligent designer has to be the least plausible idea ever conceived of.
Believing in evilution is like believing all the parts that make up a computer, monitor, and printer could miraculously create themselves and then assemble themselves and make a program to create more parts and assembly them to make more computers, monitors, and printers without the input of an intelligent designer. I would call that person a numbnuts. A moron like me believes in the intelligent designer.
Originally posted by PatNovakWhy can't the intelligent designer be an eternal being - a spiritual being that has always existed - like, let's say... the God of the Holy Bible that in the beginning created the heavens and the earth?
This is of course a bad analogy, but even so, an intelligent designer is not immune from this argument. If you are going to argue that something is too complex to form on its own, this argument has to be applied to everything, including the intelligent designer. A being capable of creating everything has to be the most complex thing in existence. So using your argument, an intelligent designer has to be the least plausible idea ever conceived of.
1 edit
This is of course a bad analogy, but even so, an intelligent designer is not immune from this argument. If you are going to argue that something is too complex to form on its own, this argument has to be applied to everything, including the intelligent designer. A being capable of creating everything has to be the most complex thing in existence. So using your argument, an intelligent designer has to be the least plausible idea ever conceived of.
It was an attempted argument of Richard Dawkins. He says God would have to be infinitely complex. But I think it fails.
Dawkins said God had to be the most complex involving the most parts. However God does not consist of a huge multitude of parts.
Alvin Pantinga
Where Richard Dawkins Goes Wrong
Originally posted by sonshipAnd you know that how? God does not consist of many parts?
[quote] This is of course a bad analogy, but even so, an intelligent designer is not immune from this argument. If you are going to argue that something is too complex to form on its own, this argument has to be applied to everything, including the intelligent designer. A being capable of creating everything has to be the most complex thing in existence. So ...[text shortened]... ntinga
[b]Where Richard Dawkins Goes Wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCE7LoRAlnA[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsThis argument is a special pleading. You are applying criticisms to the ideas of others, but exempting your own idea from those same criticisms. Why should your particular idea get special status, and get to circumvent the standards that all other ideas are subject to? If special pleading arguments are allowed, then someone else could just as easily claim that the laws of evolution are eternal, and thus your complexity criticism doesn’t apply.
Why can't the intelligent designer be an eternal being - a spiritual being that has always existed - like, let's say... the God of the Holy Bible that in the beginning created the heavens and the earth?