Are you saying I'm lying about it being RD's point in the book.
No. I'm saying that you said it, and now you're trying to pawn it off on someone else who also said it. That's really exceptionally cowardly.
And I'm sorry to have to tell you but yes, it would count as a valid explanation for it being there.
What, exactly, was explained? Absolutely nothing. Not an explanation.
You can't just tack on extra conditions like intent and insist on them.
I didn't tack on anything. You said, (damn, you're bad at remembering these things,) "Yes of course if the earth was
intentionally created it would be an explanation of why it was here." You introduced the importance of intent, not me.
Are you saying unless you can show intent it's false?
Nope. I'm saying, for about the fiftieth time, that unless you can actually define some terms, you aren't really saying anything. And not saying anything is not a valid explanation.
Every "explanation" you've offered up so far amounts to: something, somewhere, at some point, did something somehow for some reason or another. And that's how the Earth came to be!
Really, can't stress this enough... if nothing is explained, then no explanation has been given.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : clarity
"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert