(May 25, 2016 at 7:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not trying to be offensive, but it seems that AAA could do with some training in critical thinking.  This is the best one of which I know:





Boru

That guy's understanding of evolution is very sad. He actually asked what if you were the first organism with feet, as if one day feet would have arisen in one generation.

(May 25, 2016 at 7:32 pm)AAA Wrote: ID stops at designer, and does not attempt to identify the designer. That goes on to historical, philosophical, and other lines of inquiry other than observable science.

Classic theist bullshit, "Yep, goddidit. I can't explain who, what, where, when or why and i don't know who, what, where, when or why, but goddidit."

"It's the mystery of god." <- (in a deep George Carlin voice)

(May 25, 2016 at 7:34 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 7:29 pm)AAA Wrote: I can't believe there is a single person on this planet who has the audacity to say that they could personally design life better than it is.

Me.

There are also eugenics engineers.

So i guess you are literally correct.  There is not a 'single' person but rather a multitude of persons.

Why do you all think you would be able to design biological systems better? As a student who focuses on cellular biology, it is really annoying to hear someone say that. I don't think you know what you are messing with.

 And they want to improve the health of the gene pool, which I think we all want to do. From my perspective, this would not be fixing a bad design, it would be correcting mutations that have accumulated in our population after the creation event.

(May 25, 2016 at 7:35 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 7:32 pm)AAA Wrote: ID stops at designer, and does not attempt to identify the designer. That goes on to historical, philosophical, and other lines of inquiry other than observable science.

How convenient.

So, are you ever going to give me any evidence that snowflakes are designed?

You're still on that? Your atheist friends were the ones who were saying that snowflakes have qualities of design. Take it up with the RocketSurgeon, he was the one who kept using the analogy.

(May 25, 2016 at 7:22 pm)AAA Wrote: Molecular biology has revealed processes that we have only ever seen in one place; intelligently designed systems. 

I expect you know that, with the exception of a few gadflies, biologists overwhelmingly disagree with that statement. Given this fact, don't you think it's futile to deploy such an assertion in an attempt to convince a skeptic?

(May 25, 2016 at 7:48 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 7:35 pm)The_Empress Wrote: How convenient.

So, are you ever going to give me any evidence that snowflakes are designed?

You're still on that? Your atheist friends were the ones who were saying that snowflakes have qualities of design. Take it up with the RocketSurgeon, he was the one who kept using the analogy.

No.

Pages back, you asserted that design doesn't require intelligence. I asked for an example of something that is designed sans intelligence, and you asserted "a snowflake", not in relation to what any other member said. I'm asking for your evidence. Your assertion; your BOP.

Why shouldn't I still be "on that"?

(May 25, 2016 at 5:36 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: What I want to see is triple-fail continuing to assert divine design when he reaches middle age - assuming they are male - and needs to take a piss but can't, because his enlarged prostate has blocked his ability to do so.

Just because your prostate is swollen doesn't mean mine will be or that it was intended to be that way. I'll use the analogy again; if I break your laptop with a bat, does that make it poorly designed? No, because it wasn't intended to face that type of stress.

I'm going to leave this at that - because it more than adequately demonstrates that you're thick as a fucking brick.

(May 25, 2016 at 7:39 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 7:29 pm)AAA Wrote: I can't believe there is a single person on this planet who has the audacity to say that they could personally design life better than it is. Everything that has ever been observed in nature has been great at what it does, including the trachea/esophagus setup. I do not concede that life has aspects of poor design, it is clearly done well.

If the trachea/esophagus is such a problem, then why haven't the two tubes diverged into two separate ones through evolution? If evolution can't do that, then how on earth do you want me to believe it is responsible for the cellular features?

And now you're just being silly.  You obviously neither understand nor accept evolution.

I wonder if I may ask you a religious question.  Is the idea of "god" tied up with His creative function for you?  Or are you in it for the objective morals and/or afterlife plan?  Also, how can your ideas of what God is be so precise?

How do I not understand evolution? Is it not capable of replacing an inefficient structure with an efficient one?

Why do I believe that the designer is the Christian God? There are a few reasons. One of the main reasons is that Jesus's resurrection is the only acceptable explanation for the explosion of the early Christian church as many people were reported to have seen him alive afterword. Mass hallucinations and other explanations don't hold up. Also, I have been writing an extensive philosophy paper on the purpose of life and redefining the concept of the common good. I reached a conclusion. I realized after I had come up with that idea that it coincided perfectly with the Christian message.

And I hate the idea of an afterlife as much as you, but that doesn't change the fact that I think it is true.

(May 25, 2016 at 7:59 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 7:48 pm)AAA Wrote: You're still on that? Your atheist friends were the ones who were saying that snowflakes have qualities of design. Take it up with the RocketSurgeon, he was the one who kept using the analogy.

No.

Pages back, you asserted that design doesn't require intelligence. I asked for an example of something that is designed sans intelligence, and you asserted "a snowflake", not in relation to what any other member said. I'm asking for your evidence. Your assertion; your BOP.

Why shouldn't I still be "on that"?

The RocketSurgeon had just been talking about how a snowflake has the qualities of the design without a designer, and I don't disagree. Obviously the snowflake was not consciously designed, but was the result of unintelligent natural processes. I'm not trying to argue that the snowflake was designed by an intelligence, so let's get that straight. It has features of design: high degrees of geometric symmetry and irregularity.

Remember, you asked what design doesn't require intelligence, I said a snowflake, and now you seem to be disagreeing. Are you saying that a snowflake does require intelligence? If not, then we are on the same page and I don't see why you are asking me about it.

(May 25, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Gemini Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 7:22 pm)AAA Wrote: Molecular biology has revealed processes that we have only ever seen in one place; intelligently designed systems. 

I expect you know that, with the exception of a few gadflies, biologists overwhelmingly disagree with that statement. Given this fact, don't you think it's futile to deploy such an assertion in an attempt to convince a skeptic?

I don't think they would disagree with that statement. They would just say that it is an argument from ignorance and ignore it. But the fact remains that we only see electrical communication in man-made systems and life. We only see high degrees of sequential information in life and man-made systems. We only see elaborate control mechanisms in man-made systems and life. The only known cause to these systems is intelligence. There may be an unknown cause yet to be discovered, but don't tell me it's crazy to say that the only known cause may be correct.

And yeah, I know it is near impossible to convince a skeptic. I just hope you're not one of those people who would literally never change their belief. I've met people who would believe they were hallucinating if God walked up and talked to them rather than believe He actually exists.