I made the argument that design requires a designer, both in human terms and in cosmology terms. But you fail to see the need for either. Yes, this is pathetic.
However, John, we know that there is at least two ways to arrive at apparent design. Fortunatly, we are also able to examine the resulting designs and see that they are different when produced by the different methods. Living things are a very good match for the kinds of designs that we know for a fact are produced by processes that are NOT guided by intelligence of any kind.
So from this knowledge of such processes and the type of designs produced we can indeed conclude as you note below.
quote:
But when evolutionists look at the incredible design and complexity of macro and micro space, with all its myriad forms of plants, animals, and inorganic substances, they ever spend their finite lives to somehow conclude there is no Creator cause behind our existence.
—John
The "designs" you refer to here are exactly NOT like the designs created by humans and therefore it is certainly most reasonable to conclude that if there was a designer behind them it acts to produce designs which show all the hallmarks of designs that are produced by known evolutionary processes.
We have good reasons and evidence for the conclusions we draw. All you have is an lack of understanding of the processes involved and all but the most superficial knowledge of the details of the resulting designs.
You made no argument whatsoever. You simply drew and analogy between two different classes of things. You offer not reason at all to support that connection.
Edited by NosyNed, : silly spelling