Democrats Promote Sin

[daws101]

Why then beauty, why then love, compassion, altruism? And of course, circuits must be designed, where be the designer?

there is no evidence of an intelligent designer...

Yet I see the proof, all around me, every second, every instant. Res Ipsa loquitur.....

you might want to know what your quoting before you quote it..


Definition of res ipsa loquitur (n)

Bing Dictionary
res ip·sa lo·qui·tur
[ ràyss ìpsə lókwə toòr ]


1.rule of evidence: a rule of evidence that allows that mere proof that an injury occurred establishes a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant
as I said there is no proof of design

appearance of design:

One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artifact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. Darwinian evolution by natural selection offers the greatest, most powerful explanatory scope so far discovered in the biological sciences. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that -- an illusion. We don’t yet have an equivalent well-grounded, explanatory model for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with. We should not give up the hope of a well-grounded explanatory model arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying model to match the biological one, the relatively weak models we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating God hypothesis of an intelligent designer. If the argument of this chapter (book) is accepted, the factual premise of religion -- the God hypothesis – is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist. - ]Richard Dawkins

 

[rcfieldz]

Funny how Barak doesn't declare it with an Executive Order that in America One Can Not Discriminate Period! NO! Just for the GAYS! Does anyone notice that? His ploy to win votes for the Democratic Party?!! If He declared it that it was illegal to discriminate against little people or people with rare and untreatable skin diseases or against people who hoard pets...You Would Definately See An Uproar By The People! NO! And How about Native Americans??? NO! He has nothing to say about the title of some American Professional Sports Team Names! And now his administration picks and chooses who will die by the hands of the American people with wanton use of drone warfare. You Go Barak!!! Go back to live in your old Chicago home. Hmmm... barak...isn't that the sound a chicken makes?