[[The “evidence” from the article is that existence proves a creator, it doesn’t.]]
Legrande- NO it doesn’t- it establishes an intelligent causation for hte reasons mentioend i nthe article- it ALSO estabishes and confirms several other extremely important ‘laws’
[[First you must support and provide evidence, with no contradictions before you can have a “law.”]]
There are no contradictions to what is being established- and he does provide evidence and confims observations scientifically. The article is NOT about establishing who the intelligence is- the author has an OPINION about who it is, however- keep hte discussion relevent to the central assertions that GGG posted please-
[[Maybe you should read the article. ]]
I’ve read the article several times thank you- the central issues are quite interesting, but you apaprently want ot divert fro mthem by pointing out htat hte author has an opinion in ADDITION TO the important central theme beign discussed both in hte article, and hopefully here.
NO it doesn’t- it establishes an intelligent causation for hte reasons mentioend i nthe article- it ALSO estabishes and confirms several other extremely important ‘laws’
What is the difference between a creator and an intelligent causation?
There are no contradictions to what is being established- and he does provide evidence and confims observations scientifically.
Then why can't you cite the evidence?