"Richo" <m.richardson61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:46192a55-a8a1-46ef-ab5a-ccf7ae173b24@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 6, 3:29 pm, "Semper LibčrŽ" <nopolicestates????!?
Hj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Richo" <m.richardso...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:80f153b8-7699-4c49-9195-22f7cab42ca2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Feb 6, 3:03 pm, "Semper LibčrŽ" <nopolicestates????!?
>
>
>
>
>
> Hj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Midwinter" <midwinte...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >news:pcqdnYFA8-8PnzTanZ2dnUVZ8tbinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > "Semper LibčrŽ" <nopolicestates????!?Hj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>
> > > > Complex AND purposefully organized.... That is observable evidence
in
> > > > the same way that any fool can recognize a complex and organized
> > > > computer program as having an intelligent and purposeful
> > > > creator/programmer.
>
> > > The trouble with this very common argument - the Watchmaker, I
believe
> > it's
> > > usually called - is that if the complexity of the universe alone
> requires
> > > the existence of a creator, then the complexity of the creator must
> > require
> > > its own creator.
>
> > In other words you agree its proof of a creator... you just can't
place
> the
> > start of the singularity.
> >That's not "in other words" that is putting words into his mouth that
> >have a completely different meaning.
>
> No, that is a completely logical conclusion to his statement.- Hide
quoted
text -
>
>Sorry. No it is not.
>And I would know - I understand logic.
Apparently not. His summation or challenge depends on the idea of
intelligent design, or it is illogical.
|
