Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 18120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Excuse me, but before you start to berate "my view", please point to where I've stated that a scientific hypothesis must be based on observation?

I am not going to go looking for a post which contains such a claim but, for the sake of argument, I will concede that you did not. Now what?

I dunno, you could start by not jumping the gun and building straw men?

So, even if I inferred correctly that this was your position ( even though you didn't specifically state it), the point I made is irrelevant? Nice diversion.

Quote
Whatever the hell Darwinism is, it doesn't falsify ID. ID can be behind the "Darwinist" mechanism. If you think it can't, then you'll have no problem explaining the limitations of your god on his own creation of nature.

Let's turn this around for a moment, shall we.  Since you indicate that ID could be behind the "Darwinist" mechanism, could you please describe your hypothesis for this?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you


I thoroughly disagree. I have shown lied how ID follows the rules of science. You don't agree and that is fine correct.

Changed for accuracy
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I am not referring to organisms.  Have ID'ers uncovered evidence that the universe itself had to have been designed?  That is what I mean by "nature".  It is also how you had used the word "nature" in the post I was responding to.

The argument based on "fine tuning" is the most significant one that compliments my belief.

All theistic arguments are useless, but the fine-tuning one takes the biscuit. Jeez, even Christianity refutes it. I'd be happy to have a formal debate with you over it.

This thread is already headed off in different directions but I would VERY MUCH welcome the opportunity to engage in a discussion with you regarding this topic. Perhaps it will come up at some point in another thread and we can take it up there. I will look forward to that.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79

The previous predictions you posted in this thread from evolutionnews.org are very poor examples and can hardly be considered actual predictions since they are predictions of known observations.

If you have already commented on why the examples I gave you are poor, then just let me know and I will go find your post(s). If not, then please explain why they are poor.

Quote
If you would like a good example of a prediction, why don't we take a look at a prediction made by an abiogenesis hypothesis.

Research into one abiogenesis hypothesis has made the prediction that glycine would be present on Saturn's moon of Titan even though glycine has not yet been discovered on Titan.  If glycine is discovered on Titan, then that would confirm a prediction made by the particular abiogenesis hypothesis.  If it can be reasonably confirmed that glycine is not present on Titan then the prediction was incorrect and the hypothesis or tests made will have to be reviewed and either revised or abandoned.

I would like to know what observation was made to prompt this hypothesis.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
I thoroughly disagree. I have shown how ID follows the rules of science. You don't agree and that is fine.

To be more precise, if somewhat pedantic, you have shown how you think ID follows the rules of science as you understand them.  The scientific community as a whole (not just us) disagrees.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Excuse me, but before you start to berate "my view", please point to where I've stated that a scientific hypothesis must be based on observation?

I am not going to go looking for a post which contains such a claim but, for the sake of argument, I will concede that you did not. Now what?

I dunno, you could start by not jumping the gun and building straw men?

So, even if I inferred correctly that this was your position ( even though you didn't specifically state it), the point I made is irrelevant? Nice diversion.

If you inferred correctly then it would be relevant. However, you didn't.... so it isn't.

Quote
Quote
Whatever the hell Darwinism is, it doesn't falsify ID. ID can be behind the "Darwinist" mechanism. If you think it can't, then you'll have no problem explaining the limitations of your god on his own creation of nature.

Let's turn this around for a moment, shall we.  Since you indicate that ID could be behind the "Darwinist" mechanism, could you please describe your hypothesis for this?

Is this your attempt at creating a trap? It isn't a hypothesis, but a conclusion based on your beliefs. Now, rather than playing the shifting game, why don't you explain why god cannot use the "Darwinist" mechanism.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch


I thoroughly disagree. I have shown lied how ID follows the rules of science. You don't agree and that is fine correct.

Changed for accuracy

Easy there, Hoss.  I believe BS was lied to by the ID establishment, but I do not think we can say BS lied himself.   
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
I am not referring to organisms.  Have ID'ers uncovered evidence that the universe itself had to have been designed?  That is what I mean by "nature".  It is also how you had used the word "nature" in the post I was responding to.

The argument based on "fine tuning" is the most significant one that compliments my belief.

All theistic arguments are useless, but the fine-tuning one takes the biscuit. Jeez, even Christianity refutes it. I'd be happy to have a formal debate with you over it.

This thread is already headed off in different directions but I would VERY MUCH welcome the opportunity to engage in a discussion with you regarding this topic. Perhaps it will come up at some point in another thread and we can take it up there. I will look forward to that.

It can be arranged, but first it would be best to establish your reason for why the universe is 'fine-tuned' (eg. life).
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1867
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
^^^Perhaps you should explain a little more clearly what you are proposing. BS may not realize that there is a space devoted to one-on-one discussion.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Excuse me, but before you start to berate "my view", please point to where I've stated that a scientific hypothesis must be based on observation?

I am not going to go looking for a post which contains such a claim but, for the sake of argument, I will concede that you did not. Now what?

I dunno, you could start by not jumping the gun and building straw men?

So, even if I inferred correctly that this was your position ( even though you didn't specifically state it), the point I made is irrelevant? Nice diversion.

If you inferred correctly then it would be relevant. However, you didn't.... so it isn't.

Let me just ask you outight then. Do you believe that a scientific hypothesis must be supported by an observation?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Whatever the hell Darwinism is, it doesn't falsify ID. ID can be behind the "Darwinist" mechanism. If you think it can't, then you'll have no problem explaining the limitations of your god on his own creation of nature.

Let's turn this around for a moment, shall we.  Since you indicate that ID could be behind the "Darwinist" mechanism, could you please describe your hypothesis for this?

Is this your attempt at creating a trap? It isn't a hypothesis, but a conclusion based on your beliefs. Now, rather than playing the shifting game, why don't you explain why god cannot use the "Darwinist" mechanism.

No. I am not attempting to create a trap nor am I attempting to manipulate the discussion by playing a shifting game. Neither of those manuevers crossed my mind.

But I really do want to hear how you explain this comment that ID could be behind the Darwinian mechanism. I believe you have said or implied this more than once now. If you are being sarcastic then just say so. Otherwise, I am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts.


Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
This is the kind of stuff, though, that turns these discussions into a circus.

I agree, your insistence on continuing to use logical fallacies to support your position has turned these discussions into a circus.

Pointing them out on occasion is one thing but making them a focal point is unnecessary.

For 13 or so pages of this thread I personally did not focus on pointing out your logical fallacies and instead attempted to show you why ID is pseudoscience.  You have not addressed the problems revealed by examination of the evidence you presented (which was supposed to show why ID follows the rules of science).  You simply dismiss the problems revealed without providing your reasoning or justification for dismissal (which by the way is argumentum ad lapidem logical fallacy).

If you wish to provide your reasoning or justification for dismissing the problems with your evidence then I will cease pointing out your false logic.

Like I said, if this was a formal debate, then okay....but these are open and informal discussions where the posters should not have to worry that everything they say is going to be run through the logic filter.

^^^^^
This explains why you are susceptible to doublethink.

You are the one claiming that ID is scientific and should be taught in public schools, yet you have not offered any evidence as to why your claim is accurate.

I thoroughly disagree. I have shown how ID follows the rules of science. You don't agree and that is fine.

I have explained why I do not agree with your evidence that ID follows the rules of science which subsequently means you have not shown how ID follows the rules of science.

You however have not explained why you have dismissed my reasons for not agreeing with your evidence.


EDIT: Fixed quote problem.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 07:05:45 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5058
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Even if it were true, what does it prove?....that because 99% of the ID proponents are religious, ID is somehow invalid?
If the only people who accept ID as valid are ones who already believed that a god created the universe and everything in it, then it contradicts the whole idea of ID not being religious.  On top of that, it begs the question of exactly why only the people who would benefit from a 'scientific' basis of their religious beliefs buy into ID.

One of the key strengths of science is that it doesn't matter whether you agree with a particular conclusion or not.  If you don't agree, you're free to do experiments of your own to try to disprove it, because it's falsifiable - and whether it is or isn't falsified, the result benefits science as a whole.  But ID doesn't allow for that at all.  When ID hasn't been shown to be workable through the scientific method (and so far, it hasn't been), just exactly how is someone supposed to point out flaws in it or falsify it?  When the people who buy into it insist that it must be true because it caters to what they already believe, and they just don't pay attention to anyone saying otherwise, how is that any different from groupthink?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I agree, your insistence on continuing to use logical fallacies to support your position has turned these discussions into a circus.

Okay. If that's the angle you want to open this discussion up to then let's have it, shall we.

Why don't you tell me just a little about your beliefs and how you came to form them so I can start listing all of the logical fallacies you use to form those beliefs.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Even if it were true, what does it prove?....that because 99% of the ID proponents are religious, ID is somehow invalid?
If the only people who accept ID as valid are ones who already believed that a god created the universe and everything in it, then it contradicts the whole idea of ID not being religious.  On top of that, it begs the question of exactly why only the people who would benefit from a 'scientific' basis of their religious beliefs buy into ID.

One of the key strengths of science is that it doesn't matter whether you agree with a particular conclusion or not.  If you don't agree, you're free to do experiments of your own to try to disprove it, because it's falsifiable - and whether it is or isn't falsified, the result benefits science as a whole.  But ID doesn't allow for that at all.  When ID hasn't been shown to be workable through the scientific method (and so far, it hasn't been), just exactly how is someone supposed to point out flaws in it or falsify it?  When the people who buy into it insist that it must be true because it caters to what they already believe, and they just don't pay attention to anyone saying otherwise, how is that any different from groupthink?

I will give this some thought and do some surveying to see if I can determine whether your observations have some merit. I won't pretend to know whether or not you have something here because, honestly, I've never made the connection....if there is one.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79

It can be arranged, but first it would be best to establish your reason for why the universe is 'fine-tuned' (eg. life).

That's the easy part. The hard part is getting you to step out of that box you live in so that the validity of the 'fine tuning' argument sinks in.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
The box that lets him see your unexamined assumptions?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5058
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
That's the easy part. The hard part is getting you to step out of that box you live in so that the validity of the 'fine tuning' argument sinks in.
The problem is that the presumptions of the fine-tuning argument prevent it from having any real validity.  Fine-tuning presumes, first, that the various 'parameters' of the universe can be adjusted to begin with, second, that there's not a natural method by which those parameters could change, and third, that there's some intelligence which doesn't need them at all and can adjust them more or less at will.  Not a single one of those is knowable, let alone known, so how is it possible to examine whether they have actual validity?  And if they don't have validity, then the fine-tuning argument, which depends on them, also cannot.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
^^ It also doesn't get us any closer to identifying, or even speculating, on what might have caused the universe's constants to be what they are.  Because if a designer desired to tweak the universe's constants to be just so, then the desires for those tweaks were things that beg an explanation of their own.  Are they random?  Where did that information come from, that it ended up in the mind of the designer?  Something must have constrained the designer to have those particular constants in mind, if they aren't random.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Let me just ask you outight then. Do you believe that a scientific hypothesis must be supported by an observation?

A hypothesis is formulalted from an observed phenomena, however the hypothesis itself doesn't necesssarily have to be observable.

Quote
But I really do want to hear how you explain this comment that ID could be behind the Darwinian mechanism. I believe you have said or implied this more than once now. If you are being sarcastic then just say so. Otherwise, I am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts.

First off, can we stop calling it Darwinism and just call it the ToE via natural selection?

So, I think I've explained this plenty of times in various different ways throughout this thread, but for you:

  • You believe that god designed and created nature.
  • Nature encompasses all natural processes/mechanisms.
  • Therefore, based on your belief, you must accept that all natural processes/mechanisms are designed and created by god.
  • The ToEvNS is a natural process/mechanism.
  • Therefore, based on your belief, you must accept that the ToEvNS is designed and created by god.
  • Therefore, to say that your god is a more plausible explanation than the ToEvNS is to say that god is a more plausible explanation than god.

The first point in that list shows that you agree that ID can be behind the ToEvNS.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."

It can be arranged, but first it would be best to establish your reason for why the universe is 'fine-tuned' (eg. life).

That's the easy part. The hard part is getting you to step out of that box you live in so that the validity of the 'fine tuning' argument sinks in.

What box? Before you start blowing your own trumpet, let me say that I don't expect either of us to have had their mind changed by the other after such discourse.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
^^ It also doesn't get us any closer to identifying, or even speculating, on what might have caused the universe's constants to be what they are.  Because if a designer desired to tweak the universe's constants to be just so, then the desires for those tweaks were things that beg an explanation of their own.  Are they random?  Where did that information come from, that it ended up in the mind of the designer?  Something must have constrained the designer to have those particular constants in mind, if they aren't random.

Precisely. As I've said elsewhere, the fine-tuning argument suffers from its own version of the Euthyphro dilemma.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1330
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Why don't you tell me just a little about your beliefs and how you came to form them so I can start listing all of the logical fallacies you use to form those beliefs.

most people come to form beliefs through experiential learning.
Here's a picture of how it works[1]



How does this model fit religious beliefs?
 1. plundered from Klob (1984) The process of experiential learning
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 07:02:39 AM by Mrjason »

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you

It can be arranged, but first it would be best to establish your reason for why the universe is 'fine-tuned' (eg. life).

That's the easy part. The hard part is getting you to step out of that box you live in so that the validity of the 'fine tuning' argument sinks in.

Are you really trying to be that Ironic? The box, or well, sphere I live in is suited for the life on it. The 99.9999999999999999999% of the rest of the universe isn't. If you step out of the box you live in ans suck the cold hard vacuum of space, the stupidity of the 'fine tuning' argument sinks in.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5058
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • You believe that god designed and created nature.
  • Nature encompasses all natural processes/mechanisms.
  • Therefore, based on your belief, you must accept that all natural processes/mechanisms are designed and created by god.
  • The ToEvNS is a natural process/mechanism.
  • Therefore, based on your belief, you must accept that the ToEvNS is designed and created by god.
  • Therefore, to say that your god is a more plausible explanation than the ToEvNS is to say that god is a more plausible explanation than god.
This.  So many times, this.

Seriously, BibleStudent.  If your god were actually responsible for the universe, then he could easily have done it via abiogenesis (life starting because of natural processes) and evolution (life changing through environmental pressures) than by special creation/intelligent design.  Indeed, abiogenesis and evolution are actually better explanations than ad hoc special creation/intelligent design even with a god, because they're processes that take care of it naturally, rather than requiring supernatural intervention to start or keep going.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2753
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
But I really do want to hear how you explain this comment that ID could be behind the Darwinian mechanism. I believe you have said or implied this more than once now. If you are being sarcastic then just say so. Otherwise, I am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts.

One of the most obvious indicators that ID is not very true, is that evolution has not happened very fast, and is not very intelligent. An intelligent designer could bootstrap life into the bacteria phase, extremely rapidly. When you look at the time spans involved, something is terribly wrong with ID.

Ediacaran period
635–541 million years ago

Wikipedia: Evidence suggests that life on Earth has existed for about 3.7 billion years

That means it took an intelligent designer 3 billion years to get from random amino acids, to VERY simple animal life. Ediacaran "animal" life is very plant-like; very simple.

I think that animal life really took off, when the first eyes developed. Then there was a good predator, and the simple animals had to lift their game.

An intelligent designer works in reverse: getting the simple stuff done very fast. God doesn't have to worry about any of that bootstrapping and testing period. A designer just gets straight into designing, and assembles bacteria in a few weeks, and then heads on, to design Ediacaran life a few decades later.


Quote
That's the easy part. The hard part is getting you to step out of that box you live in so that the validity of the 'fine tuning' argument sinks in.

It may have no validity at all, if the universe is infinite, and does all permutations. If you don't admit that the universe is bigger than you think it is, then it's you who are in the box.

Quote
Why don't you tell me just a little about your beliefs and how you came to form them so I can start listing all of the logical fallacies you use to form those beliefs.

I would be surprised if there were any logical fallacies in the conventional scientific view, that you could identify, without collecting a Nobel prize. There may be (a) unexplained gaps, or (b) things which are plain wrong.

In the case of (a) there is no fallacy, just a gap. In the case of (b) you wouldn't be able to identify it.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
First off, can we stop calling it Darwinism and just call it the ToE via natural selection?

So, I think I've explained this plenty of times in various different ways throughout this thread, but for you:

  • You believe that god designed and created nature.
  • Nature encompasses all natural processes/mechanisms.
  • Therefore, based on your belief, you must accept that all natural processes/mechanisms are designed and created by god.
  • The ToEvNS is a natural process/mechanism.
  • Therefore, based on your belief, you must accept that the ToEvNS is designed and created by god.
  • Therefore, to say that your god is a more plausible explanation than the ToEvNS is to say that god is a more plausible explanation than god.

The first point in that list shows that you agree that ID can be behind the ToEvNS.

The section of your post that creates a dilemma for your argument is this:

The ToEvNS is a natural process/mechanism.

Since you seem rather sensitive to previous inferences and assumptions I have made, would you please explain what you feel the ToEvNS explains?

I have never indicated that I dismiss the entirety of the ToE. Rather, my contention, as I stated in an earlier post, is that if fails to provide a verifiable explanation for soup-to-humans.

I do not deny microevolutionary changes….and, yes, I believe they occur because of the complex mechanisms that God created….even if those mechanisms had somehow evolved from another mechanism.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
This.  So many times, this.

Seriously, BibleStudent.  If your god were actually responsible for the universe, then he could easily have done it via abiogenesis (life starting because of natural processes) and evolution (life changing through environmental pressures) than by special creation/intelligent design.  Indeed, abiogenesis and evolution are actually better explanations than ad hoc special creation/intelligent design even with a god, because they're processes that take care of it naturally, rather than requiring supernatural intervention to start or keep going.

I fail to see what you find so profound about the post you referred to.

If somewhere along the way, it could be demonstrated that what you are suggesting here is a highly probable possibility, then so be it. Even if it were accurate, it would only require that I re-shape my argument. We would still be left with acknowledging that an Intelligent Designer was the initial cause.

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2254
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
The section of your post that creates a dilemma for your argument is this:

The ToEvNS is a natural process/mechanism.

Since you seem rather sensitive to previous inferences and assumptions I have made, would you please explain what you feel the ToEvNS explains?

I have never indicated that I dismiss the entirety of the ToE. Rather, my contention, as I stated in an earlier post, is that if fails to provide a verifiable explanation for soup-to-humans.

Well, what parts of the theory of evolution do you dismiss?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5058
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
The problem, BibleStudent, is that if you concede that "microevolution" happens, you're effectively conceding that "macroevolution" happens too.  Small changes add up, and there's no qualitative difference between the two.  Indeed, there are plenty of computer programs on the internet which demonstrate this, not to mention the fact that biology itself strongly supports the theory of evolution.  If it didn't, then we would have to look for something else which explained the required mechanisms.

Saying "I believe in intelligent design because I don't understand how evolution explains 'soup to humans'" is tantamount to an argument from incredulity.  It's like claiming that computer programmers work magic because you don't understand how we get from binary to Windows.

In answer to your post directed at me, this is the problem.  You believe that a 'designer' is responsible no matter what, because of your religious belief.  Because of that, you refuse to consider that you could easily be wrong about that.  Your personal credulity in this designer deity of yours acts like a filter, preventing you from seeing or understanding anything that contradicts it.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 11:07:38 AM by jaimehlers »