(May 25, 2016 at 7:59 pm)The_Empress Wrote:(May 25, 2016 at 7:48 pm)AAA Wrote: You're still on that? Your atheist friends were the ones who were saying that snowflakes have qualities of design. Take it up with the RocketSurgeon, he was the one who kept using the analogy.
No.
Pages back, you asserted that design doesn't require intelligence. I asked for an example of something that is designed sans intelligence, and you asserted "a snowflake", not in relation to what any other member said. I'm asking for your evidence. Your assertion; your BOP.
Why shouldn't I still be "on that"?
The RocketSurgeon had just been talking about how a snowflake has the qualities of the design without a designer, and I don't disagree. Obviously the snowflake was not consciously designed, but was the result of unintelligent natural processes. I'm not trying to argue that the snowflake was designed by an intelligence, so let's get that straight. It has features of design: high degrees of geometric symmetry and irregularity.
Remember, you asked what design doesn't require intelligence, I said a snowflake, and now you seem to be disagreeing. Are you saying that a snowflake does require intelligence? If not, then we are on the same page and I don't see why you are asking me about it.
