Replies

Actually its you who misunderstand the debate. Sorry, you are so caught up in logical disconnects you can't even see what you are arguing. There is no difference between the programmer argument and the watchmaker argument both are flawed and both presuppose a creator that creates a product that nature cannot form on its own. This is you logical disconnect. Creationists failed with the watchmaker analogy and now try to revamp it into this programmer analogy.

It is the only recourse of the creationist to reuse and rehash the tired worn out debates they lost a hundred years ago. The reason is they haven't got any place else to stand. Their mountain of Illogical mythology and creation fantasies are crumbling into the mud that it was built from and they must reuse, rehash, and revisit what little arguments that gave them solace in the past. This is the form of mental masturbation that creationists so relish as it gives them what they think is a intellectual stance when all it does is reveal how little they understand of the natural world.

"There is no difference between the programmer argument and the watchmaker argument both are flawed and both presuppose a creator that creates a product that nature cannot form on its own."

That's incorrect. Had you been paying attention, you might have noticed that I left OPEN, in multiple posts, the question of whether the program in question was formed by natural processes or by intelligent intervention.

both presuppose a creator that creates a product that nature cannot form on its own

Leading, inevitably, to the ultimate evolutionist absurdity, namely that "nature" could and does exist independent of any causality, "just is", and leapt into being with the full capacity to spawn the immense complexity of the universe, from a speck of nothing. Right, that's likely.

Somewhat baffling is the shortsighted and unnecessary either/or debate, as if a strictly interpreted biblical creation account and Darwinian evolution are the only possibilities. They aren't, and they aren't completely incompatible. There is much we don't know.