Posted: Aug 10, 2010 11:43 pm
by Calilasseia
Oh dear ... the in tray is full again ...

Atheistoclast wrote:Now that I have been freed from the dungeons of the atheist and his minions.....

Yawn. Unlike many thousands of people who suffered at the hands of the likes of Torquemada and other ruthless enforcers of conformity to doctrine, you were never in any "dungeon", so drop the specious hyperbole.

Atheistoclast wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:The fact of the matter is that ALL things are the result of natural processes. If you want to say they were caused by god that is another story, but please don't just come up and say something is designed because it just makes you look silly.

Do you include human (or animal) creation and design as a "natural process" or does it require "magic" in your estimation?

The mere fact that you have to ask this question speaks volumes about your presuppositions. Not that it helps you, because as I've already pointed out to you repeatedly, the "design" processes humans engage in bear NO relation to the asserted "design" process ascribed by supernaturalists to their invented magic entities.

Atheistoclast wrote:Are engineers "technological wizards" because they create and design things?

Already dealt with this specious objection. Those examples of failed pre-Wright Brothers aircraft are hardly examples of "technological wizardry".

Atheistoclast wrote:
So "rare", Byers, that the author of that paper cited instances of boulders of the sort covered in that paper that can be found on two different continental land masses.

The Flood aside

Which never happened. Observational reality says it never happened. My tropical fish laugh every time someone asserts that it did.

Atheistoclast wrote:the reference to boulders recalls your example of a heap of rocks.

And I'm still waiting for a sueprnaturalist to tell me which of those rocks was the one shaped by human hand. Which makes rather a mockery of the blind assertion that "design" is easy to detect, doesn't it?

Atheistoclast wrote:Now this is what Nature can do....


Hey, no kidding? And you think we needed to be told this?

Atheistoclast wrote:and this is what Nature cannot do....


Oh look, it's the same specious example Polanyi is so fond of. What part of "we have evidence that humans were responsible for this" do you not understand? Such as the fact that film footage was shot of the sculptors in action? Here you go, I found this film footage with three mouse clicks:


Atheistoclast wrote:The Giant's causeway requires no design inference, despite its interesting layout, but the sculpting of rock on Mt Rushmore clearly does.

No it doesn't. It doesn't require any "inference" of the sort, because the above film footage documents the relevant activity and provides evidence of human intervention in the case of Mount Rushmore.

Now, where's the evidence for your invisible magic man?

Atheistoclast wrote:It is as simple as that.

Bollocks. What part of "no 'inference' is needed, given that we have a large body of documentary evidence with respect to human intervention in the case of Mount Rushmore" do you not understand?

Atheistoclast wrote:But the naturalist is in perpetual denial of reality.

Bollocks. The only people in denial of reality are those who insist that magic entities are needed. 300 years of diligent scientific inquiry has rendered such asserted entities superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.