Posted on April 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On May 1, 12:00 pm, “Keith MacNevins” wrote:
> All it takes is an in-depth study of the innumerable factors upon which life
> depended upon to come about and to flourish.
What factors, precisely?
> Then, the factors which produced and which sustain sentient, human life.
And again, what factors, precisely?
> Factors we depend on, the
> precision, the mathematical balance and particular laws of physics, of
> chemistry and the dynamic functioning of biological organisms. Look at a
> single cell which is a lot like a miniature factory. Cranes, machinery that
> sorts, and assembles proteins. Messenger molecules, whirring molecule-sized
> motors and energy synthesis and storage. All traceable back to a “big bang?”
> A random happenstance? Dumb, blind luck? I don’t think so.
Is there any point me mentioning the Douglas Adams puddle quote to you
again? I tried to get you to show me what was wrong with it, why it
was “muddied thinking” but you wouldn’t tell me. It is still relevant
to this part of your explanation. All of these things are amazing,
wonderful, mind-boggling in their exactitude and complexity, yes, I
agree. But that does not mean they could not have come about by
natural means. It really, really doesn’t. “Random happenstance” and
“Blind dumb luck” are not the ToE. See if you can find any of those
words in any formulation of the ToE with the one exception of the word
random. And, in the ToE, “random” does not mean what it means in your
sentance containing that word above. In fact, I suspect that it
doesn’t mean what you think it means even. But that is just a
suspicion at the moment. It’s been impossible so far to get you to
articulate what you think is even wrong with the ToE.
And how many times do you needed it explained to you that your entire
argument above is one big logical fallacy before you will stop using
it? Bloody Nora Keith, the argument from incredulity, which is what
your entire argument is, *is* a logical fallacy.
Have fun,
Craig
> On 4/30/08, hardlyh…@mindless.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 2:43 am, “Keith MacNevins” wrote:
> > > A person can be entirely reasonable, sensible, and logical and conclude
> > that
> > > intelligent design is a reality.
>
> > Then perhaps you can give us these reasonable, sensible and logical
> > reasons that lead you to come to this conclusion? I, and others, have
> > asked you for them on many occassions now Keith and you seem to be
> > incapable of articulating them. Could you try that now please?
>
> > Have fun,
> > Craig
>
> –
> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments.
Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.