OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 10 2015,10:08) | So, we FINALLY get an understanding of your blind watchmaker evolution idea.
Why don't you just call it materialistic evolution?
Since you don't agree with the MATERIALISTIC part of evolution and agree with all other parts of evolution, the ONLY determining factor would be a designer.
Which means that, unlike what ID claims, the only thing that will help ID become reality is having a designer.
So who/what is the designer and what's the evidence for it (hint, using ID as evidence for a D is circular logic, so don't do that OK)?
Thanks for another own goal Joey.[/quote]
And more evidence that Kevin is an ignorant asshole- I posted all of that in my opening post of our debate and Kevin says today that he Finally gets an understanding of "my" blind watchmaker idea. April of 2011, Kevin. You are only 3+ years behind... |
Meh... so all those times I asked, instead of being an asshole, you could have just said "here's the link" and quoted it. But no, you had to wait.
The evidence for design is NOT evidence for a designer. Why? Because the evidence for design and the evidence for evolution are EXACTLY THE SAME.
That's what you clowns don't get. You absolutely must accept all the aspects of evolution because there is so much evidence in support. So you say that ID is not anti-evolution, ID is theistic evolution then.
But there's no evidence of a designer that isn't related to the "design", which you haven't shown to be any different from what's expected in evolution.
Circular logic.
What's the evidence for the designer?
The design?
How do we know it's designed?
Because only the designer can do it?
Who's the designer?
We don't talk about that.
So what's the evidence for the designer?
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
