Ahh, but there was an "intelligent designer" behind the red and blue text. Thus your argument is invalid.
Reply
Flag
1
Anonymous
/ 6 years ago
No the argument does not attempt to address the "design" issue, only the step-wise evolution issue. The design issue is completely different, yet also easy to argue and not dependent on direct intelligence.
It amazes me that otherwise logical people refuse to believe that miniscule changes can add up, and that they can be influenced by their environment; yet they choose to believe that a single being capable of planning and creating all the un-evolvable diversity, can just pop into being or have always been in existence. “I don’t believe the simple observable solution, I choose to believe in magic.”
Ahh, but there was an "intelligent designer" behind the red and blue text. Thus your argument is invalid.
No the argument does not attempt to address the "design" issue, only the step-wise evolution issue. The design issue is completely different, yet also easy to argue and not dependent on direct intelligence.
It amazes me that otherwise logical people refuse to believe that miniscule changes can add up, and that they can be influenced by their environment; yet they choose to believe that a single being capable of planning and creating all the un-evolvable diversity, can just pop into being or have always been in existence. “I don’t believe the simple observable solution, I choose to believe in magic.”