The general response of a creationist/IDist to such a challenge would be that the existence of those prior humans does not have to be explained, because we know something had to exist before everything else, otherwise there would be nothing around to make everything else exist.

The typical creationist/IDist argument that generalizes human to intelligence is slightly more logically consistent simply because it doesn’t propose that humans created themselves. In other words, it’s a little better because it’s only a minor paradox, rather than a direct, blatant paradox.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by Fiver, posted 04-17-2010 3:14 PM		Fiver has not replied

Blue Jay

Member (Idle past 2727 days)

Posts: 2843

From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts

Joined: 02-04-2008

Normal Thread Display

(1)

Message 17 of 196 (560113)
05-13-2010 10:26 AM

Reply to: Message 8 by dennis780
05-12-2010 1:16 AM

Hi, Dennis.

Welcome to EvC!

If you click on the "peek" button at the bottom of this message, you can see how I use codes to create text boxes and formatting.

-----

dennis780 writes:

Since there are organisms that exist in climates that the human could not possibly know or understand, it's illogical to assume that humans created life.

Dennis, your premise is invalidated by the simple observation that we know a great deal about anerobic organisms.

Perhaps you meant that human capability is limited by human imagination? Or, by the ability of humans to come up with ideas beyond their personal experience?

Google "silicon-based life form," and you'll see that direct personal experience has no bearing on what a human can or cannot come up with.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 8 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 1:16 AM		dennis780 has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button