Earlier in the conversation (about transitional fossils) Nate kicked it off with:
But now that the fossil record fails the TOE, they have to use an example of something made by intelligent designers. So the example proves that complex things have to have a designer.
Response:
Show us where the fossil record in any way fails the ToE.
Nate's Reply:
That has been done many times, as all the evos can come up with are similarities in fossils. Which proves how good my logic is, as all I ask for is the real deal and not a fantasy.Response:
But this isn't what the example proved. To prove something is to provide a deductive certainty. AT BEST what you could have shown was an inductive argument. You are using words that you don't understand the meaning of.
BTW - this statement is one that is easily shot through by the existence of snow flakes (which are complex things without designers).
Keep in mind, this is assuming your premises were correct.
Nate's Genius Response:
Someone was trying to say that I was saying or trying to say that computers were living things. But my point is that since I know that fossils were living creatures at one time, I can not be saying that computers are living things, because I stated they were non-living things (computers). Again my Einstein comprehension shines through.
No...we don't know where it came from. No...we don't know what it means. No...it doesn't make sense. We do however know that his Einstein comprehension is probably comparable to an autistic dog with a nick name of Einstein.
-Erin
No comments:
Post a Comment