Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tongass kid
I did not say YOU were idiotic. I said your assertion was idiotic.

This is also idiotic...

“In order for you to refute the concept of intelligent design you must demonstrate that the bicycle and airplane came from no where and there was no intelligent designer of the the products”

And I will explain to you why.

Only if the concept of intelligent design is that intelligent agents can design and create objects would the examples of humans making bikes and planes be evidentiary support of that concept.

If the concept of intelligent design was only that intelligent agents can design and create objects, nobody would disagree with it; as we all know that intelligent agents can design and create objects.

However the concept of I.D. is a LOT more than just the idea that intelligent agents can design and create objects. But you know that of course... don’t you?

Still no citation for you assertions that you at first tried to claim you didn’t say. What is the matter? Trouble backing up your claims? Typical.

Going to go back to claiming you never said it again?

204 posted on 10/28/2009 1:21:05 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream
It does not take a bright person to know when one has been called Idiotic in a back handed way. I will give you a pass this time because you appear to have moderated you response. There are many parts to the theory of evolution and those part are subject to agreement. Some parts of the theory do not receive agreement even from some that agree to validity of the entire theory. Those that agree to the validity of the entire theory must accept natural selection as a very important portion of the theory. There are many definitions of natural selection and probably the strongest is it is not intelligent design. Likewise ID has many parts and the true believer can recognize natural selection but does not place it as the overall mechanism to existence, such as an evolutist would. You inaccurately use examples of a portion of intelligent design in support of your point when you should have been using an example of natural selection. Simply, by definition natural selection is not intelligent design and by definition intelligent design is not natural selection. I agree with the other poster that a 15yo can understand these simple concept.
206 posted on 10/28/2009 1:42:34 PM PDT by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson