(January 21, 2019 at 2:33 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: [quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1878721' dateline='1548095059']
How did the designer do the designing?
what was its process and how did it implement the design.
If things are "designed" why the inefficient use of so many sperm, most of which die.
Why does it appear as though things evolved both in the fossil and DNA record.
Why does all the science not support the idea that things are designed?
(January 21, 2019 at 2:33 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: "All the science does not support" is a false premise.
I'm sorry. "all the relevant science". Is that better.
(January 21, 2019 at 2:33 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: If the question asserts something that is illogical, then you can't expect a logical response to answer the question as intended.
Would the illogical thing being asserted god. If not I don't know what you are talking about.
(January 21, 2019 at 2:33 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: On the basis that what you're claiming to be new "science", then the burden would be on you to prove your claims.
This appears to be part gobbledegook, part request for me to regurgitate every part of science that supports my view which is far too vast a task for a small post on a chat page and a repetition of some of the wisdom already imparted and ignored over the past far too many pages.
And I notice that yet again you provide no answers only evasive questions its like you have nothing to put forward to support your case but instead rely entirely on picking apart the actual science.
so once again you think you can just demand evidence and supply none.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.