Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
It means you assumed your conclusion.
|
So, would that mean that proponents of evolution also assume their conclusion by failing to include the actions of an intelligent designer or some all-powerful deity in their scenarios?
Of course not. I really am not following your reasoning on this point at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
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.
|
Ummm. Watches and computers have changed considerably since thier initial invention. From Babbage's initial designs or buckets with holes & full of sand, quite a few changes have occurred.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
Because I thought I'd elaborate on it.
|
Oh, well. Don't let me stop you, begin whenever you're ready.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
This is different from what I said in what fashion?
|
It doesn't invoke evolution.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
The ID argument.
|
Thus the question: If you're not responding to what I've said, why have you bothered to quote me?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
How so?
|
By noting that designed objects of a given type share similarities in a way that can be viewed as equivalent to the genetic similarity of living things. The similarity in the case of known designed objects arrises from their common designer... If we see a similar pattern in other objects, we may posit that these objects are also designed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
Had I offered that argument you might have a point.
|
If we remove your comments to "The ID Argument" fnord all that is left that could legitimately be crafted in response to my argument are fanboyish praise of evolution and the wonders it has wrought. If you offer some other response to my comments (and, note, not to "The ID Argument" fnord) feel free to point it out, because I've been having some trouble finding it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
Via what mechanism?
|
Whatever mechanism was necessary. Presumably genetic engineering in the case of living things.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
Also, I guess that does away with an omniscient God as the designer then.
|
The identity of the designer is irrelevant.