IOW, you're arguing from ignorance.  No thanks.

(January 9, 2016 at 6:40 pm)AAA Wrote: It is true that I don't know for sure, but I'm not claiming that I am 100% correct, I am just claiming that the appearance of design is best explained by an intelligent agent. I don't know for sure, but neither do you.

The appearance of design is best explained by what is observable rather than by what has yet to be shown to exist.

(January 9, 2016 at 4:19 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 4:02 pm)AAA Wrote: Change is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Neo-Darwinian evolution is far from fact.  Saying it is a fact does not make it a fact. And biology

You'll never prove that, all you can do is throw shit at those who doubt your design assertions.

If natural selection happened the way you say it did, then it would not have been through the top-down approach by which a human would design anything. Why do you think anyone would take such a backward approach, and take as much time as it would likely take for everything to happen on it's own?  (according to the laws of physics and chemistry), to design and execute it all, and then do such a shitty job at it? Your position makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I don't understand what doesn't make sense about designing things from the top down. What does it mean to design something from the bottom up?

 Again it isn't poorly designed. If you can honestly tell me that these aren't impressive mechanisms to do their function, then you will have me convinced that you are delusional:  tRNA molecules with their chemical specificity allowing them to recognize the nucleotide sequence and bring the proper amino acid. Polymerase enzymes that can join monomers together to build structures. Attenuation, allowing the mRNA molecule to fold based on repeating nucleotide sequences, which allows tryptophan to be produced only in cases when the cell needs it. Proteins that add phosphate groups to other proteins (at the proper times) which gives the proteins new chemical properties which allows them to do accomplish other things within the cell. Certain membrane proteins that have sites for molecules from the environment to bind to them, which causes them to alter the cytoplasmic chemistry of the cell which interacts with the genetic code and allows genes to be regulated based on the environmental conditions. Repressible and Inducible pathways that regulate gene expression to maximize cellular efficiency. The descending and ascending loops within the kidneys to minimize water loss. It is all very good. Again I can't PROVE that they were designed, but don't say that is bad.

Please, watch this.

How order naturally arises from chaos.  It is just the way nature works.  You don't need a designer.  It's all just...maths.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xv1j0n_...shortfilms

(January 9, 2016 at 6:40 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 4:12 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Can you prove that a designer is required for interacting parts to work together? I don't think you can, therefore your answer should default to "I don't know". If you are going to be a scientist, it's guaranteed you will not get far in any respectable scientific circles when you can't be that honest regarding what you do and don't know.

What I do know for sure is what you don't know. You admit to that, but still you make the claim of "design". What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, therefore, I need not prove you are wrong, but why do you maintain your assertion? If you don't know, then you just don't know!

He bee-lieves, that's why. The truth of the assertion is irrelevant, that he maintain it is the part that counts.

(January 9, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 6:40 pm)AAA Wrote: It is true that I don't know for sure, but I'm not claiming that I am 100% correct, I am just claiming that the appearance of design is best explained by an intelligent agent. I don't know for sure, but neither do you.

The appearance of design is best explained by what is observable rather than by what has yet to be shown to exist.

Right, the design is observable. The origin of the design is not, and will never be observable. Therefore, the conventional scientific method cannot fully study this question. Thankfully, people like Isaac Newton outlined a way to compare the competing hypothesis to explain historical events. We should look at what we are trying to explain, and look to see what the causal link that leads to it. This is where design is concluded to account for the genetic code and intricate workings of the cell. Based on our experience, these qualities come from a designing intelligence, therefore we should assume intelligent design unless an alternative can present itself.

(January 9, 2016 at 7:22 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: What I do know for sure is what you don't know. You admit to that, but still you make the claim of "design". What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, therefore, I need not prove you are wrong, but why do you maintain your assertion? If you don't know, then you just don't know!

It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?

That's not what observable means in a scientific context. You don't have to see something with your own eyes to be able to make an assessment of it. An observation is whatever effect the phenomenon in question has on the world; "things fall down" is an observation. "Biologically reproducing organisms evolve over generations" is an observation. The scientific method is then employed to determine the mechanism of those observations. In science, seeing is not believing; seeing is the start of the investigation, not the conclusion.

(January 9, 2016 at 7:40 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 7:22 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: What I do know for sure is what you don't know. You admit to that, but still you make the claim of "design". What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, therefore, I need not prove you are wrong, but why do you maintain your assertion? If you don't know, then you just don't know!

It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?

If everything is designed, how can you tell if something is not designed?