100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence for a Designer... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Well certainly if you name the artist as the only cause. I was assuming you meant art such as Jackson Pollack’s where he just dribbles paint on a canvas. So of course if you simply ignore all things such as air currents, adhesion of paint to brush, inertia of the brush, flow mechanics, etc., etc. then the artist is the only cause. In other words, if you purposely ignore everything but the artist, then there’s nothing left to assign cause to. But I choose to include those other factors as both “cause” and “unknown” – i.e. the exact effects of those combined causes is unpredictable. Demostrate the logical progression which leads to the conclusion that the universe is a design... however you feel like doing it. You say I am not taking into consideration what you are. Save me the guesswork and lay it out.An example using different phenomena: Every time I see rain and sky, there are clouds. So every time I see rain but not sky, I still assume there are clouds, even though I cannot see them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why does the idea of "a Designer" and science have to be at odds? It isn't. That a total fallacy that many atheist are attempting to brainwash people to believe. (or potentially they've already been brainwashed to believe it themselves) Atheists often act like science supports atheism and denies design, which a total crock of bull. It only denies certain specific designs which clearly don't match up with observed reality in important ways. Some people do take that too far and apply it to all beliefs but I'm sure there are people who fall into any category you fit who take things too far. For me I think one of the pillars for not turning into one of those ******** is recognizing that not all of them take stances against mine. I was a natural born born scientist. I've studying science my entire life. All of my careers were in scientific fields. I even taught science. And I'm stilling taking every scientific course I can get my hands on even today (abeit mostly in the forum of video presentations now). But still these are actual college lectures, and not just documentaries, although I watch those too. Your arguments that you are a credible scientist lack all of the things we would expect to see in a scientist. Well, I'll stay open about it and give you a shot: physics, biology, psychology, chemistry, anthropology, sociology, astronomy, or medicine. Which did you teach/are your specialties? The bottom line is that not only is science no imcompatible with a designer, but the discoveries of science actually point to intelligent design far more than anything else. They certainly don't suggest happenstance at all. Correction: They weren't. So this is just atheistic dogma to preach that science and design are incompatible. They aren't. I truly believe that this repugnance for an intelligent designer is actually born from the personified egostical jealous godheads of the western religions. For me it was mostly the Dover v Kitzmiller trial. People have been so turned off by those religions that they never want to hear anything about any 'intelligent designer' again. Well you can still open up the bok if you've got any new evidence (again, no fallacies please.)  I don't blame them. But at the same time it's a totally unwarranted fear. What mechanism? What is something we could potentially see that would NOT allow for that?
There are other philosophies that allow for this universe to be a cosmic dream by a truely wonderous creator. And everything we see in science just allows for the mechanism of that mind to exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB wrote in response to Shoku, It sounds like you are talking about religion and politics here and that you are fighting that battle. Good for you, keep up the good work. But don't mistake me for a politician or a religious fanatic just because I see things from a spiritual point of view. I agree. Besides, why misrepresent science just to fight religious battles. I totally destroy religious claims using their own doctrines. No need to bring science into it. Although, in the case of the Bible, there is at least one scientific observation that's worthy of bringing to bear on the false doctrine. The doctrine claims that mankind is responsible for bringing imperfection and death into the world. Well, science clearly shows us that death and imprefection existed in the world long before mankind ever came onto the scene. So the authors of the biblical mythology are caught red-handed in an outright lie. That's a valid use of science to show why a mythology is false. But trying to use the argument that science doesn't support intelligent design fails. That's an extremely weak argument that doesn't even hold water anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well certainly if you name the artist as the only cause. I was assuming you meant art such as Jackson Pollack’s where he just dribbles paint on a canvas. So of course if you simply ignore all things such as air currents, adhesion of paint to brush, inertia of the brush, flow mechanics, etc., etc. then the artist is the only cause. In other words, if you purposely ignore everything but the artist, then there’s nothing left to assign cause to. But I choose to include those other factors as both “cause” and “unknown” – i.e. the exact effects of those combined causes is unpredictable. Demostrate the logical progression which leads to the conclusion that the universe is a design... however you feel like doing it. You say I am not taking into consideration what you are. Save me the guesswork and lay it out.An example using different phenomena: Every time I see rain and sky, there are clouds. So every time I see rain but not sky, I still assume there are clouds, even though I cannot see them. Sky, this was suppose to be a demonstration of the logical progression which leads to the conclusion that the universe is a design? I don't think it accomplished that at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now I feel fairly certain that I have evidence that some other’s don’t have, simply because I have experienced things that some other’s haven’t experienced. So it is a little presumptuous to say that evidence doesn’t exist. The most that can be reasonably said is that one hasn’t seen evidence that one considers acceptable. Additionally, that reference to “elevating” is a bit vague. As far as I have seen, no one has elevated it to anything beyond “belief”. So are you objecting to others believing as they choose??? Why do you not share your beliefs with others? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragnoness wrote: Abra, you claim all this scientific knowledge and yet you do not take scientific view to this subject. You are clouded by your desire that there be a designer. What makes you say that I'm clouded by my desire that there be a designer? Did I ever imply any such thing? Every argument that I gave thus far as been based on pure reason and observations of the properties of this universe. Dragnoness wrote: Abra wrote: You need to ask the following questions: Why are there only 100 differnet kinds of elements in this universe? Why do those extremely few atoms just happen to be in the abundances they are? Why do they naturally form molecules that automatically become self-programming? Why is that digital information driven to form complex living being with brains? Why did they come together so quickly on this planet after it had cooled? But I hold that there is more evidence for design than there is for happenstance. And that's my only position at this point in time. Dragoness wrote: But of course you hold that position it is your position without any evidence of any kind. The evidence is in the above questions. The bottom line is that "happenstance" does not explain any of those things. It's not an explanation. It's that simple. All of those questions require answers that fly in the very face of happenstance. So if the happenstance doesn't provide an 'explanation' then there must be some other explanation. That's the whole point. If randomness can't explain this universe, then it must be something else! That implies 'design'. Could it be a truly freakish, freakish, freakish, unbelievably rare happenstance event? Yes! But look at what I just said, "unbelievably rare". Well, since when does an "unbelievablely rare" happenstance event qualify as an 'explanation'?  It doesn't. That would be a last restort after everything else has been ruled out. But intelligent design can't be ruled out, therefore there's no validation in the conclusion of happenstance. That's my only point. We can't just accept happenstance as the status quo without requiring supporting evidence for it. If we're going to do that, then why not just accept design as the status quo without requiring support or it? All I'm trying to say is that, at the very best, these things are on equal footing. (one does not take precedence over the other) Although, I hold that because this universe would ineed be the most freakish, freakish, freakish, unbelievably rare happenstance event, that actually gives purposeful design a bit more merit, IMHO. If the universe was more random than it is, then I'd be right there with you supporting the idea that it appears to be happenstance. But that just not the case. It's extremely well-organized. And that flies in the face of the conclusion that it's happenstance. So what I'm saying is that the signs just aren't pointing to happenstance at all. So why should we even consider that as the 'default' conclusion? It just doesn't fit that scenario. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/02/09 10:22 AM
|
|
Exactly.
I see no evidence that this universe is the result of happenstance. I have no reason to believe that. I do see evidence that this universe is a design. I see deigns. I see designers. I am a designer. I see the laws and the order of the universe. I see the chaos of creativity. I see intelligence arising. I see conscious creatures arising. I see the purpose is Life and expression and acknowledgement of that which exists. I see the infinite structure of the multi-dimensional universe. I look within myself and follow a path where I see the source of all things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/02/09 10:47 AM
|
|
That’s the surest way I know of to create conflict. I generally avoid using this subject in arguments but do you think Jewish people shouldn't have objected to Nazi eugenics practices?There is no conflict until someone objects. It is the act of objecting that creates conflict. Now if your whole purpose is to create conflict, then go ahead and object. Just don’t forget where the source of any resulting conflict lies. But that example is all but irrelevant - unless you’re trying to say that the Jews objecting to Nazi eugenics is comparable to one poster in this forum objecting to the statements of another.  If objection is what creates conflict then conflict is not a meaningful stage of interactions to look at. I wouldn’t say that. It is meaningful when one is trying to trace back to the root of the conflict. But pretending for a moment that objecting is the important step people should avoid. This thread was started by someone who has made it clear enough that he thinks there is no evidence of an original intelligent designer. Wouldn't this mean that you are in the wrong for having objected to that? If I objected to him thinking that, and one considers that objection is “wrong”, then yes I would be in the wrong. But I don’t object to him thinking that.  Now just so there is no confusion here, in this context I am using “conflict” in the sense of “a fight, battle or struggle”, not in the sense of “incompatibility of ideas”. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abra wrote: There are other philosophies that allow for this universe to be a cosmic dream by a truely wonderous creator. And everything we see in science just allows for the mechanism of that mind to exist. Shoku wrote: What mechanism? What is something we could potentially see that would NOT allow for that? Well, there you go. By your own admission science can't rule this out. So why claim that happenstance should be the "default" conclusion? Especially when happenstance doesn't even quality as an explanation in face of what is observed. Obviously you're in agreement with me and just don't realize it. All I'm saying is that we can't say. I'm not taking the position that here must be a designer. But I do hold that when we look at all we know, there is more evidence that points to design than there is that points to happenstance. Perhaps not enough to make any solid conclusions. But certainly enough to recognize that happenstance isn't the obvious answer. That's all I'm saying. That's all I've been saying. It's wrong to teach people that happenstance should be the default conclusion until we have evidence to the contrary. That is false. And it's especially false to teach this as 'science' when in fact it's not. We do have evidence to the contary. And that evidence is simply the fact that what we actually see does not imply happenstance. So it's wrong to lead people into the 'belief' that science supports a conclusion of happenstance, when in fact, it doesn't. That's all I'm saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Mon 11/02/09 10:46 AM
|
|
Dragnoness wrote: Abra, you claim all this scientific knowledge and yet you do not take scientific view to this subject. You are clouded by your desire that there be a designer. What makes you say that I'm clouded by my desire that there be a designer? Did I ever imply any such thing? Every argument that I gave thus far as been based on pure reason and observations of the properties of this universe. Dragnoness wrote: Abra wrote: You need to ask the following questions: Why are there only 100 differnet kinds of elements in this universe? Why do those extremely few atoms just happen to be in the abundances they are? Why do they naturally form molecules that automatically become self-programming? Why is that digital information driven to form complex living being with brains? Why did they come together so quickly on this planet after it had cooled? But I hold that there is more evidence for design than there is for happenstance. And that's my only position at this point in time. Dragoness wrote: But of course you hold that position it is your position without any evidence of any kind. The evidence is in the above questions. The bottom line is that "happenstance" does not explain any of those things. It's not an explanation. It's that simple. All of those questions require answers that fly in the very face of happenstance. So if the happenstance doesn't provide an 'explanation' then there must be some other explanation. That's the whole point. If randomness can't explain this universe, then it must be something else! That implies 'design'. Could it be a truly freakish, freakish, freakish, unbelievably rare happenstance event? Yes! But look at what I just said, "unbelievably rare". Well, since when does an "unbelievablely rare" happenstance event qualify as an 'explanation'? It doesn't. That would be a last restort after everything else has been ruled out. But intelligent design can't be ruled out, therefore there's no validation in the conclusion of happenstance. That's my only point. We can't just accept happenstance as the status quo without requiring supporting evidence for it. If we're going to do that, then why not just accept design as the status quo without requiring support or it? All I'm trying to say is that, at the very best, these things are on equal footing. (one does not take precedence over the other) Although, I hold that because this universe would ineed be the most freakish, freakish, freakish, unbelievably rare happenstance event, that actually gives purposeful design a bit more merit, IMHO. If the universe was more random than it is, then I'd be right there with you supporting the idea that it appears to be happenstance. But that just not the case. It's extremely well-organized. And that flies in the face of the conclusion that it's happenstance. So what I'm saying is that the signs just aren't pointing to happenstance at all. So why should we even consider that as the 'default' conclusion? It just doesn't fit that scenario. I am still hearing the same thing here. For one, default option hasn't been brought up here except as your whole scientific conclusion in favor of design. You have made the argument for design based purely on the list of "questions" that you believe discount any possibility of another option, default. Which your questions and information actually lead me to believe the opposite of your position. I can see and feel that intelligent design is where you are and you see all "proof" as pointing in that direction because of your desire for it to be true. I see your proof as proving that intelligent design is not an option. How do you and I see the same information so differently? I actually resent the idea that I am angrily against intelligent design, that is not true. I am anti man made religion but as for intelligent design I stand nuetral. I know that if there were a designer of this universe, all the ideals man has imposed on this creature would be irrelavant to the real being and it's relationship with the universe. I just do not see a lick of proof that an intelligent designer had a hand in the creation of this universe. Your lists actually show me that the proof in favor of a designer is less likely instead of more likely. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well certainly if you name the artist as the only cause. I was assuming you meant art such as Jackson Pollack’s where he just dribbles paint on a canvas. So of course if you simply ignore all things such as air currents, adhesion of paint to brush, inertia of the brush, flow mechanics, etc., etc. then the artist is the only cause. In other words, if you purposely ignore everything but the artist, then there’s nothing left to assign cause to. But I choose to include those other factors as both “cause” and “unknown” – i.e. the exact effects of those combined causes is unpredictable. Demostrate the logical progression which leads to the conclusion that the universe is a design... however you feel like doing it. You say I am not taking into consideration what you are. Save me the guesswork and lay it out.An example using different phenomena: Every time I see rain and sky, there are clouds. So every time I see rain but not sky, I still assume there are clouds, even though I cannot see them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/02/09 10:51 AM
|
|
I think both religion and science directs our attention to things outside of ourselves and that is where we are lead astray.
I hate to use the worn out guru phrase "go within" for the answers, because I used to get really frustrated with that suggestion. I did not know what it meant. So there was a short time in my life when I was an atheist (not believing in a creator deity) and an agnostic (not giving a crap on way or another.) I am still an atheist by that definition..(not believing in a creator deity.) As an atheist I am able to forget about the outer reality and begin to focus on myself, my body, etc. It is very empowering to become your own final authority and to declare freedom from dogmatic religious manipulation, and to also be free of mystical gurus, mysteries and superstitions, etc. That is what happens when you become your own final authority and accept total responsibility for every aspect of your life. But there were still questions and mysteries to be solved. I found the religious method false. I found the scientific method flawed and corrupted in many areas. So I remain my own final authority and I choose carefully the authorities I do consider to be on a valid path towards true science. And I learned to 'go within' via my own attention and imagination. There I found another dimension. I guess you can call it the "within" dimension for lack of a better term. There is a door or maybe it is a wormhole within that will take you out of this reality where you will see that all that exists here arises from these "wormholes." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well certainly if you name the artist as the only cause. I was assuming you meant art such as Jackson Pollack’s where he just dribbles paint on a canvas. So of course if you simply ignore all things such as air currents, adhesion of paint to brush, inertia of the brush, flow mechanics, etc., etc. then the artist is the only cause. In other words, if you purposely ignore everything but the artist, then there’s nothing left to assign cause to. But I choose to include those other factors as both “cause” and “unknown” – i.e. the exact effects of those combined causes is unpredictable. Demostrate the logical progression which leads to the conclusion that the universe is a design... however you feel like doing it. You say I am not taking into consideration what you are. Save me the guesswork and lay it out.An example using different phenomena: Every time I see rain and sky, there are clouds. So every time I see rain but not sky, I still assume there are clouds, even though I cannot see them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Mon 11/02/09 11:26 AM
|
|
Dragoness wrote: I am still hearing the same thing here. For one, default option hasn't been brought up here except as your whole scientific conclusion in favor of design. No that's not true. Creativesoul was the one who suggested that the 'burden of proof' lies with design as an explanation over the assumption of happenstance which requires no 'burdern of proof'. That's the fallacy that I'm arguing against. They both require a burden of proof equally. Dragoness wrote: I just do not see a lick of proof that an intelligent designer had a hand in the creation of this universe. Your lists actually show me that the proof in favor of a designer is less likely instead of more likely. Well, you're certainly free to come to that conclusion if you like. Based on my experience with math and physics I find it highly improbable to expect that a mere 100 random happenstance elements should just happen to be of such configuration to produce a vast universe where these elements can build themsleves into living conscious beings by nothing more than pure random chance. If you think that sounds reasonable, then more power to you.  From my point of view, that's not even close to being reasonable. I guess we just differ on what we consider to be reasonable is all. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/02/09 11:39 AM
|
|
I think both religion and science directs our attention to things outside of ourselves and that is where we are lead astray. This is a very good point Jeannie. I hate to use the worn out guru phrase "go within" for the answers, because I used to get really frustrated with that suggestion. I did not know what it meant. So there was a short time in my life when I was an atheist (not believing in a creator deity) and an agnostic (not giving a crap on way or another.) I am still an atheist by that definition..(not believing in a creator deity.) As an atheist I am able to forget about the outer reality and begin to focus on myself, my body, etc. It is very empowering to become your own final authority and to declare freedom from dogmatic religious manipulation, and to also be free of mystical gurus, mysteries and superstitions, etc. That is what happens when you become your own final authority and accept total responsibility for every aspect of your life. But there were still questions and mysteries to be solved. I found the religious method false. I found the scientific method flawed and corrupted in many areas. So I remain my own final authority and I choose carefully the authorities I do consider to be on a valid path towards true science. And I learned to 'go within' via my own attention and imagination. There I found another dimension. I guess you can call it the "within" dimension for lack of a better term. There is a door or maybe it is a wormhole within that will take you out of this reality where you will see that all that exists here arises from these "wormholes." In general, science has a fundamental aversion to the subjective. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. But the problem is that currently accepted “scientific method” contains some inherent problems when trying to investigate the relationship between subjective phenomena and physical reality. This “objective orientation” is why science has a hard time with certain phenomena that are fundamentally subjective in origin. Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) has published a few papers on what they have designated as "The Science of the Subjective". This whole subject came about as a result of their (quite extensive) research in some paranormal phenomena - particularly the research into a scientifically demonstrable human ability to effect the operation of mechanical processes through no known physical means. That research alone has some interesting implications regarding “design of the universe”. E.g. if it is possible for humans to change the operation of physical systems through “thought” (for lack of a better term) alone, how far might that ability extend? Virtually all of PEAR’s publicly available papers are available at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs Some specific papers that I find of interest are “The Science of The Subjective” (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/sos.pdf) “Change The Rules!” (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Change_The_Rules.pdf) The specific experiment into human/machine interfaces can be found here: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/human_machine.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness wrote: I am still hearing the same thing here. For one, default option hasn't been brought up here except as your whole scientific conclusion in favor of design. No that's not true. Creativesoul was the one who suggested that the 'burden of proof' lies with design as an explanation over the assumption of happenstance which requires no 'burdern of proof'. That's the fallacy that I'm arguing against. They both require a burden of proof equally. Dragoness wrote: I just do not see a lick of proof that an intelligent designer had a hand in the creation of this universe. Your lists actually show me that the proof in favor of a designer is less likely instead of more likely. Well, you're certainly free to come to that conclusion if you like. Based on my experience with math and physics I find it highly improbable to expect that a mere 100 random happenstance elements should just happen to be of such configuration to produce a vast universe where these elements can build themsleves into living conscious beings by nothing more than pure random chance. If you think that sounds reasonable, then more power to you. From my point of view, that's not even close to being reasonable. I guess we just differ on what we consider to be reasonable is all. I will let it stand there. I still disagree with the conclusion of "reasonable" but I will let it stand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think both religion and science directs our attention to things outside of ourselves and that is where we are lead astray. This is a very good point Jeannie. I hate to use the worn out guru phrase "go within" for the answers, because I used to get really frustrated with that suggestion. I did not know what it meant. So there was a short time in my life when I was an atheist (not believing in a creator deity) and an agnostic (not giving a crap on way or another.) I am still an atheist by that definition..(not believing in a creator deity.) As an atheist I am able to forget about the outer reality and begin to focus on myself, my body, etc. It is very empowering to become your own final authority and to declare freedom from dogmatic religious manipulation, and to also be free of mystical gurus, mysteries and superstitions, etc. That is what happens when you become your own final authority and accept total responsibility for every aspect of your life. But there were still questions and mysteries to be solved. I found the religious method false. I found the scientific method flawed and corrupted in many areas. So I remain my own final authority and I choose carefully the authorities I do consider to be on a valid path towards true science. And I learned to 'go within' via my own attention and imagination. There I found another dimension. I guess you can call it the "within" dimension for lack of a better term. There is a door or maybe it is a wormhole within that will take you out of this reality where you will see that all that exists here arises from these "wormholes." In general, science has a fundamental aversion to the subjective. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. But the problem is that currently accepted “scientific method” contains some inherent problems when trying to investigate the relationship between subjective phenomena and physical reality. This “objective orientation” is why science has a hard time with certain phenomena that are fundamentally subjective in origin. Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) has published a few papers on what they have designated as "The Science of the Subjective". This whole subject came about as a result of their (quite extensive) research in some paranormal phenomena - particularly the research into a scientifically demonstrable human ability to effect the operation of mechanical processes through no known physical means. That research alone has some interesting implications regarding “design of the universe”. E.g. if it is possible for humans to change the operation of physical systems through “thought” (for lack of a better term) alone, how far might that ability extend? Virtually all of PEAR’s publicly available papers are available at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs Some specific papers that I find of interest are “The Science of The Subjective” (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/sos.pdf) “Change The Rules!” (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Change_The_Rules.pdf) The specific experiment into human/machine interfaces can be found here: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/human_machine.html Those are great links Sky. I downloaded them and will read them. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creativesoul was the one who suggested that the 'burden of proof' lies with design as an explanation over the assumption of happenstance which requires no 'burdern of proof'. That's the fallacy that I'm arguing against. They both require a burden of proof equally. Yes I agree. We are now waiting for CreativeSoul, (or anyone else) to tell us why we should assume happenstance over intelligent design BY DEFAULT. Well? Anyone?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, there have been a couple people who made the assertion that if we considered intelligent design, then all further searching for truth would cease. Really?
Why would anyone think that? If we could prove intelligent design, do you really think we would stop there? Of course not! Not even hard core scientists would stop there. They would want to know the process in detail. Others would spend the rest of their lives trying to test and debunk that proof. Others would work feverishly trying to tap into that powerful process. Why do you think they are chasing the "God particle" (Higgs Bosen)? They want FREE UNLIMITED ENERGY. Do you honestly think that hard core scientists would sit back and not attempt to use and study any new information about an intelligent creative source or power? Do you think they would just throw up their hands and say OH... God did it. That answers all of our questions, no need to continue now. Never gonna happen. They would chase that information until they themselves are creating universes in test tubes. They would build a giant particle accelerator and start smashing atoms together creating tiny 'big bangs' to see what might happen. (Oh I forgot... they are doing that already..) They would try to clone humans and map DNA and create new life in test tubes... oops they are doing that already too. There is intelligent design here. Its everywhere and in everything. It works to expand the body of the universe and it never stops to rest. Except maybe on Sunday. <------- (joke) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creativesoul was the one who suggested that the 'burden of proof' lies with design as an explanation over the assumption of happenstance which requires no 'burdern of proof'. That's the fallacy that I'm arguing against. They both require a burden of proof equally. Yes I agree. We are now waiting for CreativeSoul, (or anyone else) to tell us why we should assume happenstance over intelligent design BY DEFAULT. Well? Anyone?? That isn't true either. The only one I saw use the "default" was Abra. He said Creative, but I did not see that. Abra has been using the default in favor of intelligent design the whole time. He has yet to prove that another option is not possible. |
|
|
|
|
