Personal blog that will cover my personal interests. I write about Christian Theology and Apologetics, politics, culture, science, and literature.
Seems to me whatever you presuppose connects presuppositional apologetics. Lazy...
I presuppose you that you didn't read the article.
Your presupposition is wrong. Not the first time... :)
I agree..you know a lot about wrong presuppositions.
No offense, Marcus, I don't mind the snarky comments (other than thinking they are pointless, but the "I know you are but what am I" type ones, like above, make you seem like a child.
Childish is ignoring the evidence and redefining terms to suit yourself. Something else you are very familiar with. I didn't say "I know you are but what am? I'm saying that your presuppositions are wrong and have no standing. No evidence. Nothing other than what you think. Not good enough.
Childish is ignoring the evidence...Says the guy who doesn't think evolution is true.
What evidence do you have that evolution is true?
Nested hierarchy, homology, the fossil record, etc... Remember how I keep recommending you read a book on the subject?And before you say all the evidence for common ancestry could instead be evidence for common design, you'd be partially right, except that there is evidence against design (for example, redundancy of design, i.e. bat wing vs. bird wing) and that's exactly what we'd expect from different lines of evolution vs a designer.
"redundancy" of design is a stupid argument because it assumes that you know all the factors that went into design and what is needed and what isn't needed. We don't. Evaluating someone else's design is precarious at best. You don't really know why it was designed the way it was. Kind of arrogant to assume you could have done better or that it could have been designed better."Nested hierarchy, homology, the fossil record, etc" is evidence that not everyone interprets the same way. I'm looking for evidence that can't be interpreted any other way. That can't be fudged the way you have. The fossil record does not support evolution without a lot of interpretations that you can't prove are correct.
Well, it wasn't designed at all, but cool, if you want to not believe evolution is true, knock yourself out.
Knock yourself out trying to believe evolution. Your assertion that the universe was not designed is merely an assertion.
My assertion that the universe was not designed is similar to the assertion that the easter bunny is not real. There isn't evidence for either, so it's not really an assertion.