Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
Yeah, but the analogy between cars and people fails because cars don't give birth and thus couldn't participate in evolution.
|
I thought the point of all that was that people (and all the other living things) don't participate in evolution in any significant way, either... and all the grand scale things attributed to evolution and common ancestry are instead due to a common intelligent designer. So the fact that cars can't participate in evolution is irrelevant, as the argument doesn't invoke evolution at any point (except to lampoon it).
Cars don't evolve, yet still demonstrate morphological similiarities based on a common intelligent designer. Ergo, morphological similarities in, say, mammals could also be taken as evidence of a common intelligent designer. Cars not being able to evolve
is the point.