Now I am not arguing this argument here and now, I know you don't accept it, but can you accept the conclusion only says whether something is designed?
I call BS on the entire premise behind this thread.
Intelligent design is rejected both as being cloaked creationism AND as a failed scientific argument, and folks here have long discussed exactly why they reach that conclusion in excruciating detail. Then you come along and essentially ask if people really know what they are talking about.
I literally just wondered if you can see my point, because you could even argue that evolution is the designer if you wanted to.
Actually you cannot make that argument because evolution is not intelligent. The basic ID argument is that we can tell when "looks designed" and then reach the conclusion that intelligence is involved. Proponents of evolution often make the argument that biological things that "look designed" are products of evolution.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
™ Version 4.2
