RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 28, 2015 at 6:56 am
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2015 at 6:59 am by bennyboy.)
So much hypocrisy, I can't stand it.
Dude, YOU are the one playing the semantic run-around game. We don't NEED even to define evolution. We can be satisfied that you can show that ANY deliberately-organized system exists outside of Earth. So far, you have: "Stuff on Earth was created by human minds, so the evidence is that stuff not on Earth was created by a mind." It's a shitty argument, regardless of what definition of evolution is getting batted about at the moment.
It's also a convenient red herring for you. You can make the whole debate a semantic one, thereby making everyone forget that you are making a positive assertion with no good evidence. You're like the fat chick in every bar that keeps shouting, "Stop staring at my tits!" while making absolutely sure that nobody has the chance to fully comprehend that behind those floppy breasts lies an even floppier intellect.
Dude, YOU are the one playing the semantic run-around game. We don't NEED even to define evolution. We can be satisfied that you can show that ANY deliberately-organized system exists outside of Earth. So far, you have: "Stuff on Earth was created by human minds, so the evidence is that stuff not on Earth was created by a mind." It's a shitty argument, regardless of what definition of evolution is getting batted about at the moment.
It's also a convenient red herring for you. You can make the whole debate a semantic one, thereby making everyone forget that you are making a positive assertion with no good evidence. You're like the fat chick in every bar that keeps shouting, "Stop staring at my tits!" while making absolutely sure that nobody has the chance to fully comprehend that behind those floppy breasts lies an even floppier intellect.
