I was wondering that myself.

(May 31, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I was wondering that myself.

I'm guessing he didn't notice the "if" there.

(May 31, 2014 at 7:07 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 7:05 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: you're making a big assumption there pal..

It would be good if you told me what assumption.

"IF human life can be created and designed without the need for God, then there is no reason why one must or should accept God's existence as an intelligent creator/designer of human life."

in its entirety.

(May 31, 2014 at 7:21 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 7:07 pm)Irrational Wrote: It would be good if you told me what assumption.

"IF human life can be created and designed without the need for God, then there is no reason why one must or should accept God's existence as an intelligent creator/designer of human life."

in its entirety.

Yes, I'm commenting on something Heywood said. If he agrees with it could have been possible without God, then his view is not reasonable as it violates the principle of parsimony.

(May 31, 2014 at 6:41 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 5:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I know others have told you, but I haven't been around the PC all day and I'd like to reply, too!

I did criticize your argument when I mentioned that all you have is humans building living organisms, based on all the "rules" of living organisms that humans had discovered before. But it seems your comprehension is a bit slow... huh?.. others have told you exactly the same, and yet, you keep parroting that no one is addressing your argument.

Humans are pretty close to creating machine life too. Such an achievement will not be based on the rules of living organisms. Also it is quite likely we will invent new rules of living organisms(actually we already have....watermarks).

“[W]herever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty” (Hume, Dialogues, Part II)

(May 31, 2014 at 6:59 pm)Irrational Wrote: If human life can be created and designed without the need for God, then there is no reason why one must or should accept God's existence as an intelligent creator/designer of human life.

This is nonsense.

Suppose God and Zod exist. Both can create human life. God creates human life. This would be reason enough to accept God's existence as an intelligent creator/designer of human life.

Zod's existence and actions(or in action) have nothing to do with Gods existence and action.

(May 31, 2014 at 7:25 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 7:21 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: "IF human life can be created and designed without the need for God, then there is no reason why one must or should accept God's existence as an intelligent creator/designer of human life."

in its entirety.

Yes, I'm commenting on something Heywood said. If he agrees with it could have been possible without God, then his view is not reasonable as it violates the principle of parsimony.

Listen dipshit, all god claims including yours are nothing but gap filling. Claims of invisible magical super heros do not simplify shit. Look up "infinite regress".

Now when you can get your god claim proven in a neutral lab and beat everyone to the patent office, then we can talk. But you are no different to us than Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Shintoists Mormons or Scientologists. Please don't stupidly think you are the first to argue science proves your god or are the only religion that tries to pull this bullshit tactic.

(May 31, 2014 at 7:33 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 6:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: Humans are pretty close to creating machine life too. Such an achievement will not be based on the rules of living organisms. Also it is quite likely we will invent new rules of living organisms(actually we already have....watermarks).

“[W]herever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty” (Hume, Dialogues, Part II)

i never liked hindus .. according to the chinese all indians smell bad.

(May 31, 2014 at 6:29 pm)Heywood Wrote: Now if I never observe a new lineage of life coming into existence via some natural process, but I do observe new lineages of life coming into existence via some engineer designing and manufacturing the initial DNA code for that lineage....I can conclude that the initial DNA code of a lineage is a designed thing.

All you've done is circle back to the same flawed inference. I've already explained why this doesn't work. If all you can do is repeat yourself, then I'm done.

(May 31, 2014 at 6:38 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 6:32 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: Of course I didn't design myself! I would have done a much better job!

in what way?

The blindness has got to go

The impossible curls would be nice and wavy

Keep my nice butt not so big that I keep knocking things down

My skin actually perfect not too dark not light
I'm fine with it

Can I be at least 5'7"

Never get above a size 8 no matter how much I eat

No more wisdom teeth

Night vision

Better smell

An awesome singing voice

Cute cat ears and tail

no back issues from big boobs