(May 19, 2016 at 9:01 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

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

That's not how it ends. It ends when nobody responds and get busy with school. Last time, esquilax stopped responding to me and the rest of you basically said "you just don't understand" and left it alone. But finals are over, so I'm back!

(May 19, 2016 at 7:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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

Apples arranging into a bird and biological systems are not even close. I am offended personally that you could make that comparison.

Poor old you.

(May 19, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 7:14 pm)AAA Wrote: 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.

Yeah but it leads to the same qualities that a genuine design would possess.

No, it doesn't, and that's not just a -little- wrong. You don't see many cable tied, foot pedal powered, canvass covered rudders hidden under the tail of a 747, now do you?
(wait, do you, is that how you think that works....)

(May 19, 2016 at 11:05 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: 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.

Yeah but it leads to the same qualities that a genuine design would possess.

Don't ever....ever...ever.... argue for design if you do then you have to accept the fact that your god is a shitty creator the end.

Step One: Make an unfounded assertion of "facts" that are simply not in evidence, or better yet, garble your scientific definitions so you can chop down that strawman you've built by using those new "facts" you just invented.

(For instance, "Mutation and natural selection has not been shown to be sufficient to account for the complexity of living systems.")

Oh? Since mutation literally means any change in the sequence of the DNA during copying, what other mechanism of change in the DNA do you think we're overlooking, to drive the evolution which we observe happening over time? Is it magic? Oh, I hope it's magic!

Do you mean point mutations cannot account for the rapid changes we see? Well, that's quite true, and is usually the source of the quote-mining where you say "See? Professor McGenius says it's not enough!" Except you ignore that other mechanisms are proposed immediately afterward (and they turn out to not be magic, much to my chagrin, every time) to explain what is actually driving the rapid changes, such as homeotic developmental "instructions" in particular gene sets, in which small DNA changes result in huge phenotype shifts.

Step Two: Quote-mine small, out-of-context snippets from prominent scientists, then distort what they're saying so you can make it seem like your side is bravely and brilliantly pointing out the "flaws" in the scientific method (which you claim to be practicing) and models.

When the proper context of the quotes is tiresomely tracked down by the skeptics to whom you present this bullshit, and the actual information presented to you, you just deny the new information is valid, or you simply pretend you didn't say it, didn't make the mistake, and move on to the next quote mine, which leads to...

Step Three: Machine-gun lots of large, complicated-to-answer questions at your opponents. If they bother to track down and demonstrate your interpretations of that information are either in ignorance or simply full of crap, just move quickly on to the next "gotcha" question, thinking that THIS one will be the one that brings down that dastardly, godless evil-lushun. If they don't want to take the time to find the information you're asking for, don't want to give the equivalent of a semester-long course on genetics to answer it, and ask why you don't just look it up yourself, then you DECLARE VICTORY!, as if their fatigue at your slanted approach means it's really the right answer, after all.

Step Four: Pat yourself on the back for all the extra effort you went through, being ridiculed for thinking that there's a magical explanation anywhere we don't have 100% of the answers (and, based on your past appearances here, even in some places where we do have the actual, non-magical answers), and trying to bring "Tha Laht of da Lawrd" to a gawdless, heathen science-world with no magic in it.

Step Five: Be sure to reassure yourself, preferably in a mirror for extra effect, that even though you're out of touch with 99.9999% of the biologists in your field, worldwide, it's really your tiny little group of rebels and their belief in magic that are the True Scientists™... even if, as Michael Behe admitted on the stand, you're all using a definition of science that would include Astrology and Fortune Telling within its sweep.

GTFOH with that.

(May 19, 2016 at 3:12 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 3:06 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Not this tired old shit again. Didn't you already severely derail one thread with your design bullshit?

Yeah, I just get annoyed when people imply that it is irrational to believe in God. It's fine if people don't think there is a God, but I feel the need to defend the position that it is perfectly rational to think it was designed by intelligence, and that belief in God is not antiscientific.

It is irrational. Deal with it.

(May 19, 2016 at 5:58 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: AAA should change his name to Mr. Equivocate.

Nope. Triple F. It's the grade he obviously got in his biology courses.

(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?

Human bodies getting cut in half don't "appear" to be getting cut in half. They fucking well are getting cut in half.

Learn to English, asshat.