Posted: Jul 23, 2010 11:08 am
CharlieM wrote:Shrunk:
This has to be one of my favourite creationist arguments:
"To our knowledge, no intelligent being is capable of designing x. Therefore, x can only have been designed by an intelligent being."
If someone scratches their head over a problem, it does not mean that they won't eventually solve it, just that it will take a lot of mental effort and deep thought to accomplish.
Its funny that nature is always one step ahead of us. The industrial revolution came along and nature was a mechanism. It turned out to be much more. The computer age came along and nature was understood as the product of an underlying computer-like code. It is much more than this. The invention of the wheel has been hailed as a marvelous human achievement. Well, nature beat us to it. We didn't know that nature has beaten us to the invention of the electric motor until recently.
So we use our advancing intelligence to design x and lo and behold nature has already designed x.
Bio-mimicry is becoming a popular endeavor as we realize the wonderful inventions that nature has produced.
I find that anyone whose cherished belief is being questioned responds with emotionally-charged replies, so I'll await the Spock-like logical responses.
Must rush. TTFN.
You still failed to understand my point. Your initial claim was presented as evidence for intelligent design. Yet what it demonstrated was that the most intelligent "designer" we know of, human beings, are still not able to create an object of such complexity. From this you conclude that there must exist an even more intelligent designer somewhere that is capable of designing it. But that's just a presupposition on your part. The alternative explantaion, and the one that is supported by literally millions of pieces of evidence, is that it arose from a process that doesn't require a designer.
LIve long and prosper.