I'll give AAT one last shot at the grand prize before I give up on him entirely.

Here is my question.

What does any of this matter? Why should we care if we are designed are not, from a practical point of view?

Surely you must think there is some payoff if you're prepared to jettison the scientific method over this one topic while claiming to be a science student.

(January 15, 2016 at 1:05 am)AAA Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 12:04 am)pool the great Wrote: Okay, you know biology.
But what exactly is your point?
Are you arguing the point "These are so complex that it's obvious it was designed."

Well my basic point is that the systems in the cell work together in such a way that if they were designed, the designer had incredible intelligence that is truly awe inspiring. No I'm not saying so complex, therefore God. it's: we know how it works, it works like a designed system, other explanations fall short, therefore designer is a reasonable conclusion.

What you're saying is:

* Designer had incredible intelligence that is truly awe inspiring.
* Stuff works like a designed system because other explanations are not good enough.
* Designer is a reasonable conclusion.

Forgive me for asking, but is this not what they mean by Circular Reasoning?

(January 14, 2016 at 5:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What's the deal here...the minute I explain to you that you that no matter what you have to say regarding evolution I will not become a christian..you have nothing to say to me?  

What, exactly, are you here in this thread to accomplish?

I'm of the opinion that Junk Status is taking a selective approach to putting those refuting him on ignore. Obviouly he can't ignore everybody, so he still responds to a few. But the arguments he has no answer for are effectively blanked from his view.

(December 23, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Usually when they want to use that argument, they basically argue for deism, then make a giant leap from "creator god" to "my theistic god". How do you get from "the universe needed a creator" to "Yahweh/Allah/Jesus is lord"? You could google a long list of creator gods that people have worshiped, so all you've done is narrow it down to them at best. And they're not just different versions of the same guy.

So you concede deism is true but not theism?

Lol some atheist you are.

(January 15, 2016 at 1:05 am)AAA Wrote: therefore designer is a reasonable conclusion.

No, it's not a conclusion at all. I've been saying this throughout the thread. "Designer" is the hypothesis; now come up with ways to test that against the observations. Concluding with the very thing that you presuppose is not following the evidence by any definition.

(January 15, 2016 at 1:08 am)AAA Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 12:13 am)Rhythm Wrote: It's not as if you -don't- think this happened....you just think that it happened by magic.  Honestly man, what's the point, wtf are you doing here?

It's hardly magic. Why couldn't a being arrange molecules into nucleotides and amino acids, then arrange those into a sequence capable of interacting based on chemical specificity? Why is that magic to you

And here we see the argument from ignorance in its natural habitat.

(January 15, 2016 at 1:29 am)AAA Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 1:13 am)KevinM1 Wrote: What are you comparing it to to determine that 'it works like a designed system'?  Do you have any applicable counterexamples of undesigned/emergent systems?

We compare it to things with known causes. For example, we know computer systems to have a designer. We know coal/diamonds/sand etc. to not be designed. We then compare the qualities of life (such as a DNA code, RNA, Proteins, and their ability to interact in specific ways to accomplish a goal) to the qualities of the things to which the cause is known. The fact is that only known cause things that resemble these features is an intelligent causal agent. Therefore, based on the method of historical science outlined by Newton, and later by Darwin, we can infer design. Now there may be some other explanation, but the theories for abiogenesis all have serious problems, and evolution also has problems.

Yes, you can infer design; but you already admitted that that's where you draw your conclusion.

And again, saying "but evolution also has problems" adds nothing to your own position.

(January 15, 2016 at 9:07 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 1:05 am)AAA Wrote: therefore designer is a reasonable conclusion.

No, it's not a conclusion at all. I've been saying this throughout the thread. "Designer" is the hypothesis; now come up with ways to test that against the observations. Concluding with the very thing that you presuppose is not following the evidence by any definition.

Already done. CSI.

I'm not an ID advocate but it isn't hard to see ID makes hypotheses that can be tested.

I'd ask you for a citation or two, but you're just going to say "lolwut?" like you did in the attitude thread.

Maybe.

If I suspect you won't be able to have a substantive conversation.