mike the wiz writes:
In fact evidence of intelligent design can't "NOT" be evidence of intelligent design even if the explanation is that it wasn't caused by intelligent design.
Huh?
mike the wiz writes:
The evidence for a Creator is a creation/created/intelligently designed things.
But "creation/created/intelligently designed things" is not what we observe.
mike the wiz writes:
To say, "it's not" means you have to qualify what is. I notice you didn't do that.
If design proponentsists can not define design, why should I be able to? If you can't define a flerbend, why should I have to prove one doesn't exist?
mkike the wiz writes:
Prediction; you won't qualify evidence of a Creator as true evidence which would, "follow" which we all know would be the usual evidence of creation and design, but rather you will deliberately choose to qualify evidence of a Creator as something you already know does not exist, so I can't provide it.
Your prediction fails. As I have told Phat many times, I will gladly accept evidence of a creator. I won't even do a thorough background check like the FBI or MI5 would do. I'll accept the same evidence that I'd ask of the guy who reads the gas meter - picture ID will be fine.
On the contrary, I think it's you and Phat who would not accept real evidence of a creator. You'd call him a false god or a demon because he doesn't fit your fiction of what the creator "should" be. You don't want evidence of a creator. You'd rather create your own hiding creator.
mike the wiz writes:
Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction?
I've never heard anybody but creationists put much stock in it.