(January 4, 2016 at 10:03 am)Rhythm Wrote:(January 4, 2016 at 8:22 am)pool Wrote: Okay, I get it now.IMO..? No, the problem with your usage of design is that it means nothing.
The problem with my usage of design is that it can be interpreted as however I like. Right?
Quote:Main points:
* Design implies intelligent action.
Sure. I'd hazard to say that design requires intelligent action, as design -is- an intelligent action.
Quote:* Resemblance of a design due to natural causes is not a design because of its fluctuating constraints.So, a "design" arrived at by natural forces, say, evolutionary forces........is not a design. Pretty much rules out being an "intelligent design", huh? As expected, you wasted our time.
I'll get back to you. Gotta hit ze zym.
For now, I'll remind you that it is not in my intention to try and falsify The theory of evolution.