(May 30, 2014 at 7:19 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote:pocaracas Wrote:If you want us to accept that there is an intelligent designer, you must present one, only then you may show that that designer was responsible for designing life on Earth.
Until then, natural causes are all we have to work with. Theories exist, one has shown remarkable resilience to new evidence, so it has become accepted. The details are still being ironed out, but you can't trump your wishful thinking all over that theory.
Do I have to present you with an intelligent designer?
A little presumptious ,aren't you..
If it's a presumptuous requirement, then the idea that such a thing exists goes out the window.
(May 30, 2014 at 7:19 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Step right up folks and let me show you the one who made the universe, yessiree .. for only five bucks you can even ask him a few questions . just step up and stay to the right.I was hoping for a freebie.
(May 30, 2014 at 7:19 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Can I present you to caravaggio? Do I have to prove he was a pretty good painter . Do I have to convince you that Picasso was a cubist?That age old canard?
Allow me to quote from some famous person: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Caravaggio and Picasso were painters, human beings who paint on canvas. We have photos of one of them. We have their signatures on their respective paintings. We have commonplace reports of their existence as humans, such as civil ID or church baptism records. And many other trivial pieces of evidence attesting that such persons existed.
Now, the designer of life on Earth, on the other hand... is either hiding from its creation, or just non-existent. Either way, for all practical purposes, the assumption of non-existence is equal to the assumption of existence while playing hide-and-can't-seek.
(May 30, 2014 at 7:19 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Don't you think you're sounding just a little bit stupid?I know what'll happen if I reply to this, so I'll behave and just leave it at that. zen...........