(January 9, 2016 at 7:56 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 7:19 pm)Aroura Wrote: 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

I don't want to take the time to watch an hour long video, but let me guess at what it covers. Matter can arrange itself in symmetrical patterns that give the appearance of design. I agree. But the DNA molecule (it's actually two molecules) is not symmetrical, it is an irregular sequence that you would not expect to arise based on necessity such as the symmetry we see in lattice structures like crystals or salt. I looked at the first part of it and it talks about how the elements that make up humans are embarrassingly common, but there is a huge difference between the presence of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, and their specific arrangement into molecules that make up our bodies. Also order does not arise from chaos. We can go to the second law of thermodynamics argument if you like. Entropy increases. Unless you have a system to harvest energy and actively work against the law, then the amount of energy available for work decreases over time according to every observation ever outside of life.

Sorry if I'm way off with what the video is going to be about, but I'm sure you can understand that I don't want to spend an hour of my time watching a video. If not, then you should watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxMkMBXAVZ8

No, that is not what it says.  But I guess you aren't actually interested in educating yourself on what it DOES say, just setting up a straw man and knocking it down.

Has AAA mentioned yet what difference it makes if life does turn out to be designed by some sort of intelligence? Just interested if there is any point whatsoever behind this obsession with trying to poison one specific piece of science. Why is it always this one, I wonder? Could it be because it makes the bible look stupid as a side effect? Yes, I think it is. But he's using science to disprove science, by assuming all the rest of science is correct while it would also fall into being useless according to all these "objections". Someone has objected to it, at some point! You can always find someone who thinks gravity isn't real or whatever. What, they aren't a real scientist just because they say that?

I have him on ignore, I'm having a hard time believing he is any kind of science student. If he is, he needs to seriously learn from what people are trying to tell him here. Or the only kind of "science" he'll be doing is creationist science. He seems wholly unconcerned with evidence and instead treats science like some kind of popularity contest. I suppose it is possible to study the theory without knowing much about how science actually works.

(January 9, 2016 at 11:02 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 8:28 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Well, yes I have a problem with that because we don't recognize design intuitively, we recognize design by contrasting it with things that occur naturally. Your talking about cells and life being designed, what are you comparing to? If your whole argument is based on an individuals intuition than your argument is as easily refuted as it is confirmed by those standards, I could just intuitively not see the design in life.

I am comparing it to everything we know about the abiotic world. We don't see nucleotides organizing themselves into a purposeful sequence. We barely see them at all. We don't see amino acids organizing themselves. We don't see mutations increasing the information content in genomes.

 Do you agree that life looks designed? Do you agree that the cell does things that require the specific action of proteins working together? Would you rather have the body you have now, or let all the best engineers who have ever lived collaborate to create you a new one without all the crappy design that you guys have been going on about? Do you think they could do a better job? Do you deny that the theory of evolution has a lot of holes? Do you honestly think these holes will be filled in? Why do you require hard evidence for design while not requiring it for the theory of evolution, yet not count the fine tuning of the universe or the intricate activity of the genetic code?

I don't know what would count as evidence for intelligent design in the cell if tRNA, attenuation, viral capsid structure, telomeres/telomerase, p53, cyclins, kinases, immune system functioning, and the hundreds of thousands of intricate activities that go on in the bodies of living organisms. You'll probably just say that they evolved and that the evidence for that will come later.

No I do not agree that life looks designed, goodbye.

Hilarious.

No, it seriously does not look designed. It looks exactly like what you'd expect from a natural iterative process. If you understand how such a process works.

Of course it looks to designed to people who have presupposed it is designed. To people who have to believe it is designed due to religious biases.

Even if it did "look designed", what science is this? Lookey likey theory?

(January 10, 2016 at 1:43 am)AAA Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 1:15 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Evolution isn't an explanation for life at all, it's the mechanism by which life diversifies. The theory of evolution is the human study of said mechanism.

And yes, evolution is 100% fact by virtue of the fact that something cannot be 99% fact, either it's a fact or it isn't, and evolution has been and can be thoroughly demonstrated to be factually accurate. There are gaps in the fields of study that encompass evolution, but the mechanism of evolution itself is an undisputed scientific fact.

Natural selection and mutation are fact. Whether they can lead to improved information content in the organism is up for debate.

You accept that variation through mutation and natural selection are factual, and yet you claim you don't accept evolution; with that one statement you have demonstrated very clearly that you don't possess even a basic understanding of the term.

(January 10, 2016 at 2:23 am)robvalue Wrote: Hilarious.

No, it seriously does not look designed. It looks exactly like what you'd expect from a natural iterative process. If you understand how such a process works.

Of course it looks to designed to people who have presupposed it is designed. To people who have to believe it is designed due to religious biases.

Even if it did "look designed", what science is this? Lookey likey theory?

I agree, I'm wondering how someone tells the difference between designed life and non designed life.

(January 10, 2016 at 2:30 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 2:23 am)robvalue Wrote: Hilarious.

No, it seriously does not look designed. It looks exactly like what you'd expect from a natural iterative process. If you understand how such a process works.

Of course it looks to designed to people who have presupposed it is designed. To people who have to believe it is designed due to religious biases.

Even if it did "look designed", what science is this? Lookey likey theory?

I agree, I'm wondering how someone tells the difference between designed life and non designed life.

How can you honestly say that doesn't look like it was designed by an all-knowing celestial intelligence?

(January 10, 2016 at 2:35 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 2:30 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: I agree, I'm wondering how someone tells the difference between designed life and non designed life.

Can you honestly say that this doesn't look like it was designed by an all-knowing celestial intelligence?

Your right, the way all the pieces fit together to form a perfect whatever- that- thing- is. I stand corrected.

It's known as a Dog's Vomit slime mold apparently. Truly another beautiful gift of nature bestowed by the All-Father.

(January 9, 2016 at 7:35 pm)AAA Wrote:

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

We can observe laws and principles in action. Why insert a designer when the appearance of design (which is not the same as admitting design) can be explained without it?