(January 8, 2016 at 2:52 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Who asked for a thesis? Stop being so persecuted. I just asked you to do something other than assert design in atoms, and you still haven't done it.

I kind of figured out why I was wrong about atoms being designed since they have fixed constraints.
Although 2 H + 1 O = Water is still confusing

Id wager that only confuses folks who are about as intelligently designed as the proverbial puddle.

(January 8, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Id wager that only confuses folks who are about as intelligently designed as the proverbial puddle.

lol
So why do you think we get water only with 2 H and 1 O?
Not the how.
Why?

God did it, ofc. Water is what happens here when two hydrogen bond with one oxygen. A different bonding produces a different substance. Chemistry 101. If you could get water from H203 we'd call it water..and not trioxidane. Try to at least be less banal if you insist upon continuing to troll.

(January 8, 2016 at 4:32 am)robvalue Wrote: 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.

Designed itself just means somehow arranged itself into an evolvable structure.

Life shows specific codes that have a purposeful sequence of bases. The nucleotides are present in a specific and necessary sequence. This quality is known to arise from a designing intelligence. It may have a natural explanation, but I think that the natural explanations have serious problems. Do I have to exhaust ALL the natural explanations before I conclude that it was most likely designed?

It isn't terrible design. Is the 14 subunit DNA polymerase III poor design? Is the mechanism of attenuation poor design? Is the exquisitely tight regulation of the cell cycle using kinases and cyclins poor design? Is the p53 protein pathway poorly designed? Is the brain poorly designed? Are supercoiling, histone proteins, or nucleosomes poor design? Is the consensus sequence that allows for variability poor design?

Is it just the fact that you'd rather have your trachea somewhere besides near your esophagus? Or the nerves in the spine? Or some other small anatomical feature that you claim could be better without recognizing that things can only be improved to a certain point before it negatively effects other aspects of the body?
Sorry if I'm ranting, but I really don't think the poor design argument can stand up to the observations. For every claimed "bad design" there are thousands of unbelievably intricate and genius ones.

I got no fecking clue what is going on here.

Maths is ID?

I'm not even going to get involved

AAA: You have to provide evidence. You've not done that. You just marvel at it and say you think it must be designed. Just because certain things can arise from design, it doesn't mean all such things do.

You also haven't answered why I should care whether we are designed or not. You also didn't answer about your god belief. You've focused almost entirely on the terrible design which isn't an argument, it's an observation. I could do better with a rusty spoon and some plasticine. If you are impressed that god solved some of the problems he himself created, you have a much easier criteria than me.

(January 8, 2016 at 3:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: God did it, ofc.  Water is what happens here when two hydrogen bond with one oxygen.  A different bonding produces a different substance.  Chemistry 101.  If you could get water from H203 we'd call it water..and not trioxidane.

That doesn't answer the Why

For example :

lol
So why do you think we get 3 when we add 1 and 2 and not 3 and 4?
Not the how.
Why?

Answer: The number system and the operation addition were designed by humans to yield that result

Yes, Pool..is does answer the why, completely and with nothing left to explain.  You can only get water with h20 because that's what we've defined -as- water.  If you use some other chemical structure, you get other substances which we have defined as other things, as "not water".

Next, please.

(January 8, 2016 at 4:50 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(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.

There is almost no consensus about anything in science. The theory of evolution is one of the most attacked theories in the history of science. It isn't solely due to the philosophical implications either. That's part of it, but when they attack it with evidence, the criticisms can't be dismissed. People who attack the theory are labeled as not being real scientists. If the ones who accept the theory are the only people you consider real biologists, then of course all of the biologists agree. Because those that don't agree are not real biologists right?

Howabout you AAA, are you going to present some ID or are you going to waste everyone's time whining about evolution and the establishment for the next 30 pages?

Evolution is wrong, the establishment is irrelevent..start from the beginning. Show us why you think ID is true, not why you think evolution and the establishment are wrong.