(May 19, 2016 at 6:57 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 6:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Yes, he used the phrase "gives the appearance" for a reason.

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

Yeah, he thinks they appear designed. Obviously he sees design, but thinks it is the result of mutation and natural selection.

No, he speaks of the appearance of design being erroneous. IIRC, in one of the lectures I linked Douglas Adams reads his famous "intelligent puddle" piece to that very point.

We had a smallish orchard on the farm where I grew up. After a fairly fierce windstorm, my brothers and I were doing clean-up, when one of them pointed out that some of the apples on the group formed a pattern that looked not completely unlike a bird.

While it may appear that the tree was clever enough to drop the apples into a shape somewhat resembling a bird, I don't think any sane person would argue that such was actually the case.

Boru

(May 19, 2016 at 7:09 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 7:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Think, really, really hard about the word 'appear'.  Biological systems 'appear' designed in precisely the same way that a stage magician can 'appear' to saw a woman in half.

Boru

That's just an assertion. Maybe they appear designed the way a person genuinely getting chopped in half appears to be chopped in half. Why do we have to assume biological systems are counter-intuitive?

Because MOST things in science are counter-intuitive. Until Galileo dropped a cannon ball and a bullet from the same height, it was perfectly intuitive that a heavy cannon ball would fall faster than a light bullet. The fact that they fall at the same rate (negating air resistance) is counter-intuitive. That's how science works.

Boru

(May 19, 2016 at 1:25 pm)AAA Wrote: The more we find out about how the universe and living systems work, the more it seems purposefully designed.

That is false. 

I assume you'll agree that there is a strong tendency for highly educated people to know more about how things work.

There is also a significant tendency for those who are highly educated about the universe and living systems to be atheists.  

So, it seems that finding out about how the universe and living systems work creates the opposite impression:  It tends to persuade people that the universe is not purposefully designed.

(May 19, 2016 at 2:37 pm)AAA Wrote: ... but biologists agree that it was designed.

Nonsense.  You made that up.

(May 19, 2016 at 5:32 pm)AAA Wrote:

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

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 7:14 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 7:11 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You might be better off sticking to what someone does say, rather than what your fevered mind imagines the might say.

Oh, and equivocate less.  It's dishonest.

Ok, forget about Dawkins then. Do you think that natural selection is a designing force?

Nope.

Changes happen. Those changes that afford a survival advantage get passed to offspring. Those changes that do not, get weeded out of the population. 

There is no design.

Only survival advantages.

(May 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: However, there are a bunch of problems with this philosophy so most atheists' arguments aren't very sophisticated.

I've just never felt compelled to justify why I don't believe in such a grandly fantastic thing as the Christian god. I don't see where sophistication on my part could find any purchase here.

On the other hand I do think a robust accounting of the phenomenon of god belief generally is important to understanding our species. You won't find me dismissive on that topic. Of course my own attempt at accounting for god belief is entirely natural, as it must be since I don't acknowledge the need of a separate category for 'supernatural' things.

(May 19, 2016 at 1:25 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 12:11 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: The words of a true fantasist, a person who far prefers to live in the inside of his head rather than the real world.

Steve, the only reason that you want to remove science from any possibility of having an answer to the god question is because (subconsciously at least) you've realised that the more we find out scientifically the more remote the possibility of god becomes.

That is hardly the case. The more we find out about how the universe and living systems work, the more it seems purposefully designed.

Seriously, AAA? You're seriously back to try and argue in favor of design on this forum for the THIRD FUCKING time now? After you have had your ass handed to you twice now? After every one of your false inferences about evolution have been patiently explained to you by people who understand it better then you do? God, you're like a fucking ROBOT. You REFUSE to learn. Go away! I hate how much of our valuable members' time you fucking waste here.

(May 19, 2016 at 7:49 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 7:09 pm)AAA Wrote: That's just an assertion. Maybe they appear designed the way a person genuinely getting chopped in half appears to be chopped in half. Why do we have to assume biological systems are counter-intuitive?

Because MOST things in science are counter-intuitive.  Until Galileo dropped a cannon ball and a bullet from the same height, it was perfectly intuitive that a heavy cannon ball would fall faster than a light bullet.  The fact that they fall at the same rate (negating air resistance) is counter-intuitive. That's how science works.

Boru

Most things aren't counter-intuitive, but a lot are. If it is counter-intuitive, it has to be demonstrated to be. Mutation and natural selection has not been shown to be sufficient to account for the complexity of living systems. So why not assume it is not counter intuitive until shown to be? Or why not have people approach it from multiple perspectives so we are more likely to test it thoroughly?