(March 21, 2016 at 5:48 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 9:28 am)loganonekenobi Wrote: The point i'm trying to make is that even if you could inference a designer you cant identify said entity.  We cannot look beyond the petri dish at the designer.  We are in a situation that one bacteria is saying to another "something must be beyond us and I am stating that it must be in accordance to my idea."  The other bacteria says "I don't know but I'm not going to accept your idea of this until that entity communicates with me because that is the only way to know for sure."  The real difference between this scenario and the god idea is that we cannot communicate with bacteria but it is claimed that a god can communicate with us.  I'm sorry but i cannot concede to such arrogance, if such a being did in fact exist, that it would care if we believe in it or not or that it "loves" us.
It is still much more humble and noble to say "I don't know so I keep looking."

I don't know if you saw my wristwatch analogy but if you found a watch with no markings, you would still conclude that it was designed by someone, even if you couldn't identify that person by looking at the watch. You would still be satisfied that they existed. Tracking down the designer may indeed be difficult but one thing is for certain - they exist. And another thing is possible - if you found him, you may not like him.

In the case of a wristwatch yes obviously, if I ever found him I would advise him to be a bit more forthcoming with evidence where the watch came from.

(March 21, 2016 at 5:48 pm)AJW333 Wrote: I don't know if you saw my wristwatch analogy but if you found a watch with no markings, you would still conclude that it was designed by someone, even if you couldn't identify that person by looking at the watch. You would still be satisfied that they existed. Tracking down the designer may indeed be difficult but one thing is for certain - they exist. And another thing is possible - if you found him, you may not like him.

How do you determine that? I know this fallacious analogy hinges on just skipping past to the conclusion, but what actual logical steps do you take, upon seeing a watch, upon seeing any object, that leads you to the conclusion that it was designed? What observations do you make to get you to that point?

Natural, or designed?  And what are you basing that on?

(March 21, 2016 at 6:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Natural, or designed?  And what are you basing that on?

This is actually the perfect example of refuting the design argument.

Just because one sees something, anything, that one has never seen before does not mean there is a designer behind its existence. I cannot understand why people today would still have this primitive need for everything to have been designed. Seeking an answer is much different than merely jumping to a conclusion. Science in that way is much better than religion.

(March 21, 2016 at 10:27 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Are you seriously arguing how unlikely the eye would be if it didn't evolve, that it occurred just by single step random mutation?  Nobody is arguing that the eye came into being purely by chance.  Evolution is a process involving self-reinforcing steps.  That you present this bogus calculation as if it had anything to do with anything is ridiculous.  You can't demonstrate design by knocking down a straw man representation of evolution.  The evolution of the eye is well documented and it didn't occur by 'random chance'.

For every protein component of the visual system to be created, there must be a section of the DNA that codes for it. How does this code get added to the DNA library?

(March 21, 2016 at 6:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Natural, or designed?  And what are you basing that on?

Especially given that, if you bear the analogy out to its fullest extent, all objects are equally as designed:

Our christian chewtoy stands on a beach. The beach is made of watches. The ocean that laps at the shore is made of watches. The country that he is in, and every country beyond the sea of timepieces, are also made of watches. The entire planet is watches. A sun made of watches hangs high overhead, the gravitational center of a solar system of watches, and the gravity that causes that solar system to orbit the watch-sun... is watches. Our christian sits in his watch galaxy, which is itself just a minuscule part of a watch universe that comprises all of watch-creation. Stopping, seeing something unique and attention grabbing among the grains of watch-sand on the watch-beach, the christian reaches down with ticking hands and picks it up, bringing it close to his watchlike face, so that his watchlike eyes can regard it, for at least a few minutes before it turns quarter-past three, and the hands in his watch face will obscure his vision for a minute on one side, and an hour on the other. The christian reflects on how nice it is that he, too, is a watch: he always knows what time it is.

"There's something unique about this," the christian ponders, the object securely contained in his clockwork fingers, surrounded on all sides by air molecules, all of which are watches. Glittering metal sunlight reflects off of the polished glass faces of literally everything, throwing up brilliant refractions made of watches, and suddenly, the christian understands: "I know!" He says, each word a perfectly formed watch spewed from his watch-mouth, as watch-clouds move momentarily over the watch-sun. "This is a watch! It must have been designed, because it differs so greatly from everything else on this beach in ways that could not be naturally produced!"

Turning timepiece legs, the theist watch walks up the watch-beach, holding his designed watch, with a spring in his step. Metaphorically speaking. As distinct from all the literal springs, because his feet are watches. He has somewhere to be, now: he must show all the other watches this watch that he found, and all the features of it that make it a uniquely designed object.

Somehow, he'll find the time.

(March 21, 2016 at 6:26 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 10:27 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Are you seriously arguing how unlikely the eye would be if it didn't evolve, that it occurred just by single step random mutation?  Nobody is arguing that the eye came into being purely by chance.  Evolution is a process involving self-reinforcing steps.  That you present this bogus calculation as if it had anything to do with anything is ridiculous.  You can't demonstrate design by knocking down a straw man representation of evolution.  The evolution of the eye is well documented and it didn't occur by 'random chance'.

For every protein component of the visual system to be created, there must be a section of the DNA that codes for it. How does this code get added to the DNA library?

Do you not know how mutations work? Should I even be surprised, at this point?

(March 21, 2016 at 6:26 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 10:27 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Are you seriously arguing how unlikely the eye would be if it didn't evolve, that it occurred just by single step random mutation?  Nobody is arguing that the eye came into being purely by chance.  Evolution is a process involving self-reinforcing steps.  That you present this bogus calculation as if it had anything to do with anything is ridiculous.  You can't demonstrate design by knocking down a straw man representation of evolution.  The evolution of the eye is well documented and it didn't occur by 'random chance'.

For every protein component of the visual system to be created, there must be a section of the DNA that codes for it. How does this code get added to the DNA library?

You're what they call 'special', ain't ya?

(March 21, 2016 at 11:53 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 5:43 am)AJW333 Wrote: I'm simply demonstrating the statistical impossibility that the eye evolved through DNA mutation. You should address this.

Irreducible complexity has been addressed ad nauseum on this forum. Perhaps you could show a little intellectual honesty by researching it yourself before coming here to spew your bile all over the place. Prove you give a shit about truth and honesty. Google "debunking irreducible complexity" and see what you get.

I won't be holding my breath waiting. I know the idea scares the shit out of you.

What I've done in this last segment of the discussion is to examine the complexities of DNA coding and to point out that the necessary development of the code required to produce the integrated systems we see in the body is evidence of design. How is that spewing bile?

What confuses me is how you make the leap from complex to design. You are not giving the allowance for anything else. That is your problem, due to your already preconceived notions of how you think. You are not examining anything. Rather, you are seeking tidbits of information that already supports your dim view of reality.