Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Oh yeah, well! Your argument fails because it doesn't take into account that such morphological changes could be due to the tinkering of an intelligent designer. So nyah!
Seriously, though. I really don't see how this comment responds to anything I've said, or really makes any kind of point at all. "Ah, your alternative to evolution fails because it doesn't include evolution."
|
It means you assumed your conclusion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Who implied that computers (or pocket watches, if you prefer) arrived by chance?
|
No one; that's why the IDer's use it as an example. It's flawed though because watches/computers have no mechanisms for change, whereas naturalistic evolution does.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Agreed. Why did you bother to quote my post if you appear to make no response to it?
|
Because I thought I'd elaborate on it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Algae aren't simple, nor are mammals terribly complex. That whole "golden ladder" misconcept has been out of vogue for a while, BTW. The reason pregressively new and more interesting things show up is because, just as we observe in manufacturing and technology, new information builds on previous information. "Lower" lifeforms had to be designed and tested and tweaked before "Higher" level designs could be presented and modified.
|
This is different from what I said in what fashion?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
By "this argument" do you mean your own, or your other argument that you inexplicably try to ascribe to me?
|
The ID argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Can be. Can also be attributed to common design.
|
How so?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
"Evolution! Evolution! Rah! Rah! Rah!" is not a convincing counterargument.
|
Had I offered that argument you might have a point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Tinkering  |
Via what mechanism?
Also, I guess that does away with an omniscient God as the designer then.