No, they don't agree any such thing.

We've been through this at least twice already.

Atheism wins on the account of atheists being real.

(May 19, 2016 at 4:01 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 2:37 pm)AAA Wrote: Yeah, it depends on your perspective, but biologists agree that it was designed. The question is was it designed by random mutation and natural selection, an intelligent designer, or some third alternative? The first one is becoming less reasonable as we begin to learn about the complex regulatory mechanisms and interplay between the different enzymes.

Well Richard Dawkins thinks it was designed, just by an undirected process of mutation and natural selection. What do you think then? Are living systems not designed? Do you just object to the word design, because that's what Dawkins uses. I think I've heard Shermer say this as well. Is natural selection not ultimately a designing force?

(May 19, 2016 at 4:02 pm)robvalue Wrote: No, they don't agree any such thing.

We've been through this at least twice already.

Well Dawkins does.

Yeah 'designed'.

Ever heard of equivocation?

You're a donkey. Know how I know? Because you're clearly a complete ass.

That's about the extent of your logic right there ^^^

(May 19, 2016 at 5:33 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 4:02 pm)robvalue Wrote: No, they don't agree any such thing.

We've been through this at least twice already.

Well Dawkins does.

No, he really doesn't. I mean, he really REALLY doesn't.

Boru

AAA should change his name to Mr. Equivocate.

(May 19, 2016 at 5:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 5:33 pm)AAA Wrote: Well Dawkins does.

No, he really doesn't.  I mean, he really REALLY doesn't.

Boru

Are you sure? He mentions several times in his book how Darwin explained the design without a designer. He also says: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Plus dictionary.com defined design as: purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

Biological systems definitely exhibit purpose behind their actions especially on the cellular level. Everything is coordinated to respond to stimuli in the most beneficial way for the organism. Do you really think that biological systems don't exhibit apparent design?

Exactly, you're fucking equivocating to fuck.

(May 19, 2016 at 6:08 pm)AAA Wrote: Are you sure? He mentions several times in his book how Darwin explained the design without a designer. He also says: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Yes, he used the phrase "gives the appearance" for a reason.

http://www.richannel.org/christmas-lectu...id-objects