We know there's a God because...

I delayed to expose the fact that the Darwinists here do not even know what their Patriarch has said.Without any further ado: But be advised that I am not speaking for Buzsaw. There are other sources for this claim too, including Theist sources, of course. But since an Atheist source (= Darwin) has admitted it is pointless to post a Theist source.Ray

I own a copy of the book. Dennett does not qualify the word design with any negating adjectives. He admits design to exist in the context that it was produced by natural selection.I already said this in Message 68 which you are supposing to not exist: Based on the fact of the observation of design anyone can deduce that the same indicates the work of an invisible Designer. The OP is refuted. I did no such thing, you are lying to my face. I am through here.Ray

Geo: Percy asked if one could conclude for the existence of a God based only on visible reality.The answer is yes; based on the observation of design, which logically corresponds to invisible Designer.We understand why Atheists must deny this logic.But Percy also argued that the existence of negatives, like disease and disasters, evidence the non-existence of a God. When the first claim above is admitted to have been refuted we can move on to Percy's other claim.Ray

Nonsensical evo babbling.Ray

Duh.Can you follow the following "complex" logic?Observation of organized complexity and design corresponds to the work of invisible Designer or Creator. Well I am glad you agree. But I do realize that you assign a different causation to explain the observation of design. BUT THE POINT REMAINS - WE AGREE THAT THERE EXISTS AN OBSERVATION OF DESIGN SEEN IN NATURE.Logically, the observation indicates Designer. Lets see how you explain design: In preface you said: You are a flaming kook also known as a evolutionist.I will now take a break and commence rolling on the floor in laughter.This is why we know evolution is Atheist fraud: they would rather postulate aliens (intelligence) to explain design rather than the intelligence of a Designer and the hundreds of millions of persons who testify to His existence.Your next explanation of design: You mean a process that all scholars say exhibits no signs of intelligence produced design, isn't Designer a more logical and superior explanation? Of course my question is rhetorical. Dennett's quote did not place quote marks around the word design, you are misrepresenting. Dennett admits design to exist in the context that it was produced by Darwin's Dangerous Idea or natural selection. The whole POINT of me quoting Dennett was to establish that some scholars admit to the existence of design in nature with no negating adjectives or qualifiers. The whole POINT of making this point was to say that Creationism has a superior explanation for design (= Designer) rather than a process that exhibits no intelligence. I have been deliberately misrepresented on these simple points of fact and logic because you evolutionists cannot refute what was actually said and argued.Funny how no Admin has appeared to verify these misrepresentations like they do against Randman over absolutely nothing in comparison. But the even larger point remains: design exists in nature and based on this observation anyone has the logical right to conclude that the same was produced by invisible Designer. You can illogically assert that it was produced by aliens or non-intelligence if you want to.The OP is refuted.Ray

You are just a pathetic evolutionist ass kisser too ignorant to see that Percy is patronizing you. You have been outsmarted and put on a leash and have sacrificed any intelligent arguments that you might make to now be inferior, subject to evolutionist review and approval.You ought to care about what other Designists think of you rather than fruit loops who deny that design implies Designer.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : spelling mistakes caused by anger accounts for both edits.