if this gets promoted, put this in showcase, please? Its aimed for them, so I'd like for them to at least be able to answer the question. Also, I'm not going to get into a debate over this--I just want to know their answers, regardless of what they answer with.
Recently Herepton, you used this phrase:
Who changed the truth...." = appearance of design corresponds to invisible Designer
the key here is the phrase "appearance of design".
why is it "appearance of design"? why that word?
here's why I'm asking. what does the moon "appear" to do?
does it rotate around its axis? does it "appear" to do so?
common sense would say no, it doesn't rotate, because we always see the same face of it. logic tells us that it does actually rotate, or else those on the other side of the world would see the opposite face, and we might even eventually. it just happens to rotate once for every revolution.
appearance is a word that carries baggage of falsenss. Something "appears" to be, not necessarily "is".
I can say it "appears" that randman is crazy. He might not be. He could be.
so when you say "appearance" = (equals), or, is, you have a problem.
so why do you use "appearance of design" equals?
do you not think that it "is" designed? if so, why use a word that carries the conotations of falseness and uncertainty?
from my side of the fence, using that word in that statement is quite illogical and undefendable. I await your response.
As a reminder, I'm not here to debate. I am here to hear your answers.
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC
Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
™ Version 4.2