RE: Intelligent Design
January 14, 2016 at 4:07 pm
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2016 at 4:09 pm by Simon Moon.)
(January 14, 2016 at 3:50 pm)AAA Wrote:(January 14, 2016 at 3:38 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Only when your main arguments are argument from ignorance ("I can't figure out how these things could have come about via natural mechanisms, therefore it must have been my god") and argument from analogy ("this thing in the cell sure looks like a complex machine, therefore it must have been designed") does a magic being, that lives in a realm that can't be shown to exist, become the best explanation.It's not an argument from ignorance. I think you got to this thread late, but this has been covered a lot. It's not "We don't know, therefore God", it's "We do know how it works, and it functions like things that we only see paralleled (although not nearly rivaled) by things designed from humans" Therefore maybe it requires intelligence to exist.
Complexity and function are not a sign of design.
Yes, argument from analogy. Just as bad as argument from ignorance.
So, when have you eliminated all possible natural explanations? What peer reviewed journal is your paper published?
Why haven't the majority of biologists been swayed by your oh so convincing arguments?
Face it, you already had your conclusion, and you are constantly forcing the evidence to fit.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
