RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:23 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 3:24 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Cato Wrote:(February 6, 2015 at 2:57 pm)Heywood Wrote: You don't understand the argument being made. Obviously you have not read the 99 pages of this thread.
If every waterfall you observe is the product of man, and you never observe a waterfall which is not the product of man, then you can conclude that all waterfalls are the product of man. That conclusion will stand until you at least come across a water fall that can't be the product of man, or observe one coming into existence not as the product of man.
The fuck I don't understand. Go back to page 94 and look again at your post #944. My waterfall example perfectly represents the argument you're making.
You're backtracking now, but you're argument still doesn't work. We dug the Panama Canal so I'm quite confident we can re-route a river to a nearby cliff if we wanted to. Does this mean that Niagra and other falls must be man-made? That's now your argument and it's still ridiculous.
No back tracking Cato.
The argument I made on page one is the same argument I am making on page 99. It is the same argument I proved in this thread
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30716.html