(January 7, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 6:30 pm)AAA Wrote: Molecules to man evolution is not fact. It isn't that hard to wrap your brain around, and the ID argument is not the argument that results from people not understanding the theory. If you want to believe in evolution, you have to have a natural way to increase the complexity of a living system over time. Studies show mutations to be harmful and degrade the genetic information. These mutations in our originally good genome are what cause these diseases that you are complaining about. There are cellular mechanisms (indicating design) that prevent mutations, but there is only so much it can do when the people in our society fill ourselves with mutagenic chemicals instead of the nutritious fruits and vegetables we were intended to eat. This suffering from diseases is almost entirely due to poor lifestyle or inherited mutations from ancestors with poor lifestyles. It is not the fault of the design or the designer.

with that argument I think you should petition to have you name changed to 'junk status'. It'd have the virtue of being accurate to your honesty and knowledge level.

What was wrong with it? Name calling is not helpful to anyone.

What does "it designed itself" mean? If that means it just happened without an intelligence designing it, then yes, that's what is most likely. It's a very strange way of putting it though.

No, it's not at all apparent that life is designed. That requires evidence, not just the observation of complexity and astonishment.

I'm not claiming it definitely wasn't designed, just that there is no good evidence that it was. Trying to trash the theory of evolution does nothing to demonstrate design.

Also, it's a terrible design. If you think God did it, you're calling God useless.

(January 8, 2016 at 4:29 am)AAA Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: with that argument I think you should petition to have you name changed to 'junk status'. It'd have the virtue of being accurate to your honesty and knowledge level.

What was wrong with it? Name calling is not helpful to anyone.

It is shit and lies that is what it is. I've never studied biology (well, if you were honest instead of an inverterate liar, you'd admit the same) and my knowlede of evolution is far better than yours simply from reading popular science books.

Does the poor widdle babbie not like it when his shit and lies are exposed? Go home to mammy baby, or grow up.

(January 8, 2016 at 3:53 am)AAA Wrote: There is no consensus of biologists. The number of people who believe something does not make that belief correct. Revolutionary ideas are the ones that go against the "consensus" of the time.

I'm pretty sure biologists have reached a consensus on basic biology by this point.

When the consensus is backed by evidence which bears out the theory time and again, and the naysayers have produced no proper evidence at all to substantiate their objections, then we have a win.

That's not to say the theory is definitely true, of course things can change with new information. But it's the best that can be done with what is available. The models work, or at least they seem to beyond reasonable doubt.

Saying that there is some doubt is reasonable, but saying therefor anyone can just ignore theories and make up their own rubbish is absurd. If the rubbish had evidence, then it too would be science instead of rubbish.

So what's next? Conspiracy theories? All this amazing new evidence is being silenced?

Also, what does it matter? What difference does it make if life is designed? Why should I care?

*burp*
So I was thinking about my own arguments and I figured out why I was wrong with my arguments about Intelligent design. [ My argument about all hydrogen atoms being identical ]
Only 1 more argument remains favoring ID that I can't seem to counter though.
Yeah.

Pool: OK, good I was getting worried about you! What is left?

AAT: You claim to be a science student, particularly in biology, yet you don't seem to differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis. And you either don't understand the scientific method or you are prepared to jettison it and poison the well of all of science when the results conflict with your personal beliefs. You seem to think scientific theories are arrived at by vote. There is a consensus among the educated because there is evidence, in the same way that most people would be convinced I have a car if I show them my car and the registration documents.

Let's not pretend, you think "god did it". If you don't think that, please correct me. Are you a creationist? If not, I recommend you stick to the claims that god was involved in abiogenesis, because that is the remaining gap in knowledge. One that is quickly closing.

But putting religion aside, let's say aliens were responsible for abiogenesis. We are some weird experiment. What does it matter? Why should I, or any atheist care? If I found out tomorrow aliens made me, or even god made me, it makes no difference to me. If you can find an email address for them, I have some serious complaints about how terrible their design was though.

(January 8, 2016 at 4:27 am)AAA Wrote: I think there are only two options for the complexity we see in life. Either it designed itself, or it was designed. If you can think of a third alternative, please let me know. It may seem like an oversimplification, but I think it accurately describes the two possibilities.

You can't think of a third alternative?  Evolution doesn't spring to mind?

(January 8, 2016 at 3:53 am)AAA Wrote: Revolutionary ideas are the ones that go against the "consensus" of the time.

Michael Behe and his friends are not revolutionary thinkers, by any stretch of the definition.

(December 26, 2015 at 1:26 pm)pool Wrote:

(December 26, 2015 at 1:24 pm)robvalue Wrote: "Resembles a design" is a subjective judgement.

Nope. "alfkj" doesn't resemble a design. "boobs" resemble a design.

Pooley, This is the point most here have been trying to make.
alfkj doesn't look designed because it subjectively doesn't mean anything to you.
What if that meant something to someone else, can they then legitimately claim it's designed?
Our subjective interpretations of the world around us is how religion was born in the first place.... namely through ignorance.

Any universe, must have some sort of process (physical laws) to exist in the first place.
So basically you can argue that any/every possible stable universe has design because it exists and is stable. (because it conforms to its own physical laws which created it in the first place)...   This is not what anyone here would call design. It's always good to ask questions, but eventually, you need to learn from the answers. If you think you already have the answers, then you're no different from a theist preaching? I think you're smarter than that.
Just not sure how much though!