You seemed to imply that following up on your analogy was the wrong thing to do. It's your choice.
You have completely mangled a simple sentence "not in this case", beyond recognition.
This is confusing. So by "text" you are referring to the Bible; analysis on the Bible... So by "manual" in the real world, you mean "Bible"? So - Biblical analysis/exegesis?
Yep.
So you refuse to present any evidence that evolution cannot construct a person? I just wish to be clear, here.
Yep. Not relevant to making the point at hand.
This is meaningless. Try again.
Read it again.
Ah, I begin to understand.
Good.
So, to go back to you syllogism.
P1: if man exists, then God exists.
P2: Man exists.
C1: therefore God exists.
P1: is a compound proposition:
P1a: either God or evolution created Man.
P1b: Evolution cannot create Man.
P1c: therefore, God created Man.
P2: is supported by direct observation
You refuse categorically to offer any support for P1b, because you claim you have already done so. Is this correct?
Lets recap. The atheist presents the argument that the non physical to man, would be seen through basic sensory means. Romans 1:20 was given. That God is being understood through that created. What is being understood through a creation by a creator in one aspect is intelligent design. This fulfills the analogy, that radio waves are seen through its manifestation as a voice on the radio for example.
Another person came into play, possibly Mr "Tiberius" explaining why Romans 1:20 is not applicable to him because one of his beliefs requires the perception that the bible authors were under the same conditions as the Harry Potter author. Of course, he has no objective evidence for that, but the proselytizing via atheistic doctrine was acknowledged as his belief. Further he was told that Romans 1:20 stands and the man is presented as the visible representation of the invisible.
A Mr "DontTreadonmike" attempted to replace the man with Leprechauns, Superman, etc which would all be intelligently designed, but is not needed as the man is sufficient. The intelligent design aspect finally on the table, the belief that one day science will find a naturalistic explanation for life was acknowledged as his belief.
With Mr "Eudaimonist" we played deaf and dumb for a moment. The initial presentation of man as the created seemingly escaped his grasp and he proceeded on a line of ambiguity. Conveniently disconnecting all passages which imply that intelligent design or creationism is science and pretending that the only thing ever said regarding the matter was "ambiguously" man is evidence for God. No tests, no analysis, no predictions = no science. Thats better. Through establishing that factor, he merely began presenting Darwinism as the little men, big men,and tape recorded men. He was told that that is his belief including all the "could be".
Mr "Lord Ernsworth" again began disconnecting Romans 1:20 from discussion simply by not acknowldgeing the intelligent design aspect of man then claiming that the informaton as the designer as information within the concept of God being discussed is not presented. We ended with him basically not believing that he can perceive himself.
You decided to take up the reigns of your predecessors through the negation of Romans 1:20 as presented and the intelligent design aspect of man on the table. How this was done is through the same mechanism Mr "Eudaimonist" uses. You basically stripped all scientific connotations in reference to the man, in line with the prevailing doctrine that intelligent design and Creationism are not science, then presented a syllogism where man is intelligently designed because "the bible says so". This of course is a reference to the both positions previously stated,being "unscientific", and the "literal interpretation" of scripture being the only point supporting Creationism.
You were then told that the science involved stands, and man is intelligently designed, for example, not just because "the bible says so". You then proceeded to tell me that's what I said, those were my words etc when my actual words included the scientific portion of the persistence.
You then asked, after all these exchanges, for the analogy to be mapped across the board. It was again done so using intelligent design. You mapped the radio with man and you were told "not in this case", shown the intelligent design aspect being discussed and told that it is mapped not with the radio, but with the voice on the radio. You took "not in this case" and proceeded on a desultory notion through disconnecting it with the rest of the passage in order to make it support the foundation for extraction.
You were told that "not in this case" was built upon, but you again proceeded even further into using it as a point through which you may establish a given point. The latest of your adventures in misunderland represented by the first quote in this post. But we're moving on anyways.
Having finally gotten you to see what as said in the beginning, that Romans 1:20 stands and man as the visual representation of the invisible can be chewed on via the intelligent design aspect, this is sufficient. I already know that you do not believe in Intelligent Design, and like the exchange with Mr "Eudaimonist" and his ltape recorded men, Mr "Lord Ernsworth" with his i can't see myself, Mr "Tiberius" with his Harry Potter comparisons, and Mr "DonttreadonMike" with the notorious "scientific attitude", your thoughts on intelligent design(should you choose to provide it) is your belief. I have no desire, in either case, including yours to proceed past a certain point. You asked and you were told no. You asked again and you were told no. This is another post saying no.
In conclusion, the allusion to your final syllogism suffices as a characterization of the exchanges presented before. No, its not merely the bible said so, and it is not "merely man exists therefore God exists". There are various tests conducted, predictions made, phenomena interpreted, the "manual" referenced. This is done through various aspects, but the man as being intelligently designed is one. For some reason, the aforementioned lines look familiar, but I can't remember where Ive seen it. Can't remember anything in fact. Complete amnesia. But there is the urge to say "here we go again".
EDIT: To note, and reaffirm, the compound position only requires the acknowledgment of your belief as in the previous cases. Without Darwinism, or any assertion, Romans 1:20 stands, so do other aspects of derivation. Tests done are on chance in the Intelligent Design vs non intelligent stochastic processes. Darwinism just happens to be in the cross fire and a refutation of such is natural, in tests conducted for intelligent design through systematic dismissals of the chance alternative.
