On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:07:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> True. But that just discredits the point they try to make anyway, since
> they imply that something that "looks" designed had to have a designer,
> and everything *looks* designed to them, even the stuff that isn't. 

Uh huh, that's my point about that argument - and that was before 
watching the simulation video that Darren referenced.

> So,
> its hardly acceptable, as a defense of there view, to suggest that,
> "Well, ok, you could evolve something that 'acted' like a watch, but I
> meant an actual watch!". Its one of those goal post moving, deny your
> own supposed point, hand wave, then insist you where victorious anyway,
> type defenses you get from their side. One is almost amazed that they
> don't try to pull something truly crazy, and argue about the Pluto, then
> insists later that they where actually talking about a tuna fish
> sandwich, and you just somehow failed to see the obvious connection. lol

It's one of the ways of "winning" an argument, at least to that sort of 
twisted logic.

Jim

Post a reply to this message