The vast complexity of living things proves that God exists (proof 1)

[Cyberman]

I don't know about anyone else but I only tell someone that they missed the point when they, y'know, miss the point. I'm siding with Tonus on this though, because Grape seems to play this card purely to derail an otherwise inconvenient conversation.

[pocaracas]

Did anyone say.... derail?!


And about that song?... Tim Minchin it was....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTIorwtJbhE

[daandaan]

"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." (Exodus 15:3)


clearly u r a liar !!

[Mister Agenda]

Buildings have designs and designers that demonstrably exist.

Analogy fail.

So there is no need for the experiment you proved my point,

I found a book, never heard of the title, but I know it is a product of intelligence.

There are many products I have come across and had never seen before but I knew they were the products of intelligence.

You knew they were the products of people. Because we know people make things and what the things people make tend to look like. We know things that aren't made by people by the characteristics that distinguish them from things people make: signs of manufacture, similarity to other artificial products, and so on.

Your argument boils down to 'because we can tell that things that look artificial were made by intelligent beings, we can conclude that things that don't look artificial were made by intelligent beings'. In other words, we can tell they're the same because of the way in which they're different.

But we really, really, can't claim that legitimately.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

So there is no need for the experiment you proved my point,

I found a book, never heard of the title, but I know it is a product of intelligence.

There are many products I have come across and had never seen before but I knew they were the products of intelligence.

You knew they were the products of people. Because we know people make things and what the things people make tend to look like. We know things that aren't made by people by the characteristics that distinguish them from things people make: signs of manufacture, similarity to other artificial products, and so on.

Your argument boils down to 'because we can tell that things that look artificial were made by intelligent beings, we can conclude that things that don't look artificial were made by intelligent beings'. In other words, we can tell they're the same because of the way in which they're different.

But we really, really, can't claim that legitimately.

I can give you many products which I have never heard of, or seen. You would conclude that man made it.

It is simple observational science.

[Chas]

You knew they were the products of people. Because we know people make things and what the things people make tend to look like. We know things that aren't made by people by the characteristics that distinguish them from things people make: signs of manufacture, similarity to other artificial products, and so on.

Your argument boils down to 'because we can tell that things that look artificial were made by intelligent beings, we can conclude that things that don't look artificial were made by intelligent beings'. In other words, we can tell they're the same because of the way in which they're different.

But we really, really, can't claim that legitimately.

I can give you many products which I have never heard of, or seen. You would conclude that man made it.

It is simple observational science.

And every plant and animal clearly is not made by man.

They evolved. Simple observation and deduction.

That's science.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

I can give you many products which I have never heard of, or seen. You would conclude that man made it.

It is simple observational science.

And every plant and animal clearly is not made by man.

They evolved. Simple observation and deduction.

That's science.

Except we only observe like kind producing like kind offspring.
We never observe anything other than that.
So all of observational science is also against your theory.

[Esquilax]

I can give you many products which I have never heard of, or seen. You would conclude that man made it.

No, you can't, genius; you've never seen or heard of them. And once you have, you'll have information by which you can judge- through contrast with natural things- whether or not they are designed.

It is simple observational science.

Are you going to tell us about historical science and the rest of Ken Ham's idiocy, next?

[Chas]

And every plant and animal clearly is not made by man.

They evolved. Simple observation and deduction.

That's science.

Except we only observe like kind producing like kind offspring.
We never observe anything other than that.
So all of observational science is also against your theory.

You forgot the deduction part.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Except we only observe like kind producing like kind offspring.
We never observe anything other than that.
So all of observational science is also against your theory.

You forgot the deduction part.

All evidence is now against you and that is all you have.

Abiogeneis is never observed. Simple calculations show it is impossible.

Things coming into being out of nothing is never observed. The laws of physics are against it.

Like kind always produces like kind. It is never observed that like kind produces another kind.

Incredible information content and interrelated functionality is always produced by intelligence. It has never been observed otherwise. Simple calculations show it is impossible.