RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 21, 2016 at 1:03 am
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2016 at 1:04 am by J a c k.)
(February 20, 2016 at 9:56 pm)AAA Wrote:(February 20, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Actually, Junk Status, in order for you to be able to claim that you'd have to show us evidence. But you cannot do that, because you've got none.
Checkmate creatard.
Sequential information in cells and molecular mediums that allow information to be transferred between molecules seem like designed features. It can easily be interpreted as evidence of design, especially when we see intelligently created technologies that resemble it, yet we never see non-living systems mimic it.
I couldn't remember why I stopped debating about a year ago. Now I remember. This is painful.
Here's how this sounds: This thingy right here works wonderfully in a complex manner that I don't understand. Since I don't understand it, I say god did it.
Some other person comes around and you tell her of your findings. She just heard of another god, and thinks it must be that other one. Now we have two possible responsible parties.
Some other dude comes along and asks what the hell is going on. You explain that this thingy is very mechanical and couldn't possible happen if it weren't for a god. This dude heard of yet another god, and it most certainly had to be that god the one that did it.
That's how this sounds. And this discussion has been going on between atheists and creationists for a very long time. I don't understand how creationists can continue to use the unexplained as evidence. I really don't understand. "This is complex, therefore god," is not evidence. How is this still a thing? :huh: :huh: :huh:
"Hipster is what happens when young hot people do what old ladies do." -Exian
