Autonemesis

That's the Cranial-Rectal Inversion Fallacy, a very common problem with Recreationist arguments.

(I prefer to call them Recreationists, because as far as I can tell, God was on a lark)

Kevin Dorner

Martin Heidegger already rephrased it. You're only quoting.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Van, your comments are getting worse and worse. Next it will be pascals wager.

-RRH-

Where there is no argument, there is no fallacy.

Vanderzyden

I think I've made my point. You refuse to answer for fear of where it may lead your thoughts.

Is that a fair assessment?

lpetrich

This reminds me of the comment about how film critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they can watch it being done, they can comment on it, but they cannot actually do it.

Also, I have creator credentials: I am a creator of computer programs. My creative powers are very limited compared to those of various supposed deities, but I do have such powers.

Camaban

When someone finally does manage to create a cell, I'm wondering what the creationist response will be (This being one of the favoured arguments)

Will it be:
A. "Ok, you've got a point"
or
B. "See!, that cell needed a creator. go and show us a cell being created in the wild"

?

lpetrich

That's body cells dividing; the real achievement would be to create a cell from scratch, using only simple compounds and some sort of first principles of cell design. I mean by that what a cell ought to have: a membrane, some self-reproducing molecules, catalysts (enzymes), a molecule-construction system, some way of extracting usable energy, and so forth.

Kevin Dorner

I know, I was trying to make my answer as silly as the "question."

lpetrich

I'll answer that after you answer this:

If the Universe had been created by some outside creator, then what created that creator?