Am I a religious nut

Published October 19th, 2005 by Bobby Henderson

Am I a religious nut for saying the computer had an intelligent designer.

I’m new to the debate, What if the kids in the science class room ask how the computer got there? Do I mention Darwin then, or start digging for fossils of previous computers.. Hope there is no gas line, that had to be created to so I guess I’m ok.

Dang, that shovel had to be designed too. If I got that at Kmart I can tell the kids it must evolved out of the screw driver, over a couple blue-light specials.

How did the blue-light get there Mr Jason? I can here it now. Jason Buehler



17 Responses to “Am I a religious nut”

1 2 3
  1. Nostradomus says:

    ….what the frick are you smoking?

  2. Max Globs says:

    And where can I get some?

  3. ElmotheStoner says:

    So who designed your god is wha I want to know….

  4. Darwin's Monkey says:

    One of many holes in you theory is the fact we have actually found fossils of earlier life forms, that no longer exist.
    .
    Another one is the fact the we have witnesses mutations in cells, and not computers.
    .
    Would you like me to go on with evidence, how about how poorly made a human body is, blind spot, bones trouble, the appendix. God kind of fucked up a little, evolution can explain all of the above.
    .
    “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? ” Sherlock Holmes

  5. nikkiee says:

    err….man made versus natural selection. Slight difference there!

  6. Just Guess says:

    Ah, the good old ‘watchmaker’ fallacy. An ID arguement that, while put forward constantly, simply doesn’t stand up to reality.

    1)computers do not self reproduce like an organism can
    2)computers are man made, and we can observe this
    3)we have a long and detailed fossil record supporting evolution
    4)evolution has been observed, not just on the microscopic scale, but also in lizards and fish (there are probably other examples I’m not aware of)
    5)irreducible complexity is not a basis for any scientific theory because it does not use evidence to support its claims and is just another way of saying ‘I don’t understand so God must have done it’

    I’m sure there are other arguements, but I think this pretty much destroys that tired old arguement.

  7. Wench Nikkiee says:

    Isn’t another “ID supporting” comparison, that of comparing buildings of different architectual design, being designed by the same architect, another one of the Idiot Design arguments?
    RAmen Just Guess

  8. Just Guess says:

    I’ve never heard that arguement before, and it doesn’t even make much sense to begin with. Differences in architecture are mostly aesthtic. To buildings designed along the same architectural principles could have wildly different support structures, while nearly identical support structures can sometimes be used on buildings with completely different architecture. It’s just not a good analogy for who species are structured and how it would require a designer.
    RAmen Wench Nikkiee

1 2 3

Leave a Reply