« on: June 22, 2007, 01:47:04 PM »
What in particular do you not understand?
"Natural geothermal processes" is no more protected from an argument for intelligent design than anything else. Your general position therefore becomes unintelligible and trivial.
was G designed?
counterpoints have been offered and all you do is repeat the same thing over and over
Suppose further that we have no facts at all that say F is not designed.
What would such a fact look like?
I don't agree that we have to find it more reasonable than not to think F is designed until and unless we obtain countervailing evidence to the contrary. Why? Where is that rule?
I'm saying that there is another dimension to the argument than the similarity between 2 objects. Namely, how and why one of the objects was created. The truth is that if object A is modeled on the bases of F (which all man-made creations are modeled according to the rules of the natural world) it logically proves nothing about F being designed, and only about A.
But what if, there was more to it than what you could perceive? what if the sentence looked more like: "rhyqwi98atrbmhu4wbn4w219ud340esi81gn35y @)(&%h39fh983ui135u80hjf4h9tng4y 0483uty38h0hy08dwheu9gh974h24..."?
The sentence you saw was only what you could perceive, whereas, objectively, the lines of text had no thought or intent put into them.
To this first point: "likely presence of design" is highly disputable and impossible to prove.