This is certainly the case if they can't imagine a better world than this.

This world, and this universe, are cock potatoes if they were designed. But if they weren't, they have an air of awe and wonder about them, ironically

Indeed.

Well, at last there is some evidence. Here's my favourite talking cat, to explain how the evidence works. This should settle all this bickering. There's two parts so far, I'm hoping he will continue the series as it's as hilarious as is it entertaining.

http://youtu.be/qxHAGLQMVj4

http://youtu.be/n42ICQsrNcg

Religion AND a cat? Shouldn't CC be the most popular thing on the internet?

Good point!

He should be, he is so awesome. Everyone check out his channel! He has tons of top notch material.

CC is the reason the internet was invented.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWZifSXlzlI

(January 14, 2016 at 10:36 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: I'm just gonna leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWZifSXlzlI

That was fantastic, thank you for sharing!

(January 14, 2016 at 7:56 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 9:08 pm)AAA Wrote: Right, but they interpret the results through their worldview. 

What does the fact that photolyase exists mean to you? it had a necessary function, therefore it arose over many chance events.

 What does it mean to me? A designer built in a way for our bodies to protect their genome in spite of the energy rich UV waves from our environment.

Do you see how the same result is interpreted differently based on our presuppositions? Do you disagree with this phenomenon?

Okay, so how would you propose testing for this designer? Or are you more interested in confirming your presupposition as the conclusion than actually discovering truth?

Well considering that photolyase and other proteins arose due to non-repeatable chance events in evolutionary theory, and a non-repeatable creation event in design theory, we can't use typical laboratory science to test the competing models. We have to rely on the method of historical science outlined by Newton. When we try to test competing models we have to look at explanatory power of the options. We have to look at our experience of the origin of such structures. Do we know from experience that random mutations can lead a new specified sequence of characters? Do we know that intelligence can lead to new  specified sequence of characters? The second one explains it better. Is it too religious to be science? maybe according to some people, but I think we should follow the evidence where it goes even if we don't like the philosophical implications.

(January 14, 2016 at 10:03 am)robvalue Wrote: Well, at last there is some evidence. Here's my favourite talking cat, to explain how the evidence works. This should settle all this bickering. There's two parts so far, I'm hoping he will continue the series as it's as hilarious as is it entertaining.

http://youtu.be/qxHAGLQMVj4

http://youtu.be/n42ICQsrNcg

Oh my GOD, hahaha! Ape's video moved me at the end, but these are just straight up fucking hilarious. I am so glad that God had second thoughts about the forehead dicks...