Sentences with phrase «intelligent arguments from»

Not exact matches

Further, if one removes the emotional aspect from whichever belief is held, it must be conceded that Ham did offer an objective and indisputable fact concerning how the public school system has intentionally excluded the intelligent design argument.

The truth project was blatantly intelligent design and loaded with quote mines, arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, strawmen, etc...

You are trying to create a straw man argument right now and distort an intelligent discussion from taking place.

The argument will be the old one from the watch to an intelligent maker.

Accept for the sake of argument the logic of intelligent design, based upon the premise that things which are complicated must result from design.

Assume for the sake of argument that the designer must be intelligent (ignoring of course many designs / results which from our own experience are flawed or counterproductive) 3.

The argument of a «First Mover» falls aparts when you consider that explaning the ignition of the universe by an intelligent creator requires the creator to already exist (where did he come from?)

This absence of articulate, intelligent conservative arguments from the daily lives of millions of Americans is a civic disaster.

But for me the greatest difference between Thomas Aquinas» Cosmological Argument and any and all arguments from design comes from what all the advocates of design admit: that the candidate for the Intelligent Designer could be, at least theoretically, just about any supra «human intelligent manipulator of complex artifacts, from outer «space aliens to Al Gore's Mama Gaia.

Aside from the fact that those stats have nothing to do with religion's truth, all those stats (higher drug use, lower happiness, higher stress) are all found additionally in intelligent people (something highly correlated with atheism)-- so your argument of causation is really a farce.

That intelligent people get converted from time to time is certainly not a proof that what they now believe is true, and I don't get the sense that he's using the intelligence of these people as rhetorical weight to support an argument about the truth of what he believes to be true.

That's an argument for someone far more intelligent than I, as it's a debate that could be argued from many, many different viewpoints.

One assumes that a cover story from the Atlantic will be an intelligent, well - reasoned argument; not this month.

I've seen several commentators make very intelligent arguments to that effect (and they've got some support in the case law, even though I come down on the other side)... but I've never seen it from Steyn himself.

From the intelligent and practical to the ridiculous and paranoid, there are several arguments for and against a company or individual to purchase carbon offsets.

There really should be a stronger term for the mind - numbing use of rhetorical tricks and semantic nuances that passes for informed argument here and on other threads... some from obviously intelligent, but deeply in - denial (and determined) defenders of the faith.