(July 25, 2018 at 10:35 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 10:29 am)robvalue Wrote: That's interesting, I didn't know I go to atheist churches.

Same here. Life became easier though once I started writing my name and address on the back of my hand.

That's a great idea!

(July 25, 2018 at 3:29 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Therefore if you claim that "Virtually everything that exists in the world is either a system or part of a system." then you imply that virtually everything has an overall purpose.

Ergo designer.

That's a stretch, even for you.

(July 25, 2018 at 3:29 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(July 24, 2018 at 7:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The fact that you can choke to death while eating suggests that there is no such thing as "intelligent design."   Or an intelligent "designer."

If we were so badly designed then according to evolution we would have died off...

No it doesn't. That is just your complete misunderstanding of evolution rearing its ignorant head.

Evolution is only concerned with reproductive success. Survival of species is what is important, not survival of individuals.

The only way our 'bad design' would threaten our existence as a species, if it threatened our species' reproductive success. All we have to do is survive into viable reproductive age, not old age.

(July 25, 2018 at 1:29 am)robvalue Wrote: Would these people be less confused if I said I'm a nontheist, or I'm not a theist?

They go through life confused because they cannot separate reality from their bullshit.

(July 24, 2018 at 7:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The fact that you can choke to death while eating suggests that there is no such thing as "intelligent design."   Or an intelligent "designer."

So if car car wits working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently desighned. I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

Quote:So if car working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently designed I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

Nope we expect sub optimal or even really  sub optimal  biology if evolution were true .This is not expected in ID and can only be explained by ad hoc bullshit.

(July 25, 2018 at 12:43 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:So if car working, that shows that it evolved and was not intelligently designed I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

Nope we expect sub optimal or even really  sub optimal  biology if evolution were true .This is not expected in ID and can only be explained by ad hoc bullshit.

Yes, so then it would follow that my car working sub optimally, shows that it evolved, rather than being designed by an intelligent agent.   Never mind, that I was trying to run it through water too fast.

Quote:Yes, so then it would follow that my car working sub optimally, shows that it evolved, rather than being designed by an intelligent agent.   Never mind, that I was trying to run it through water too fast

Wow a stupid analogy that does not address the point and tries to sneak unfounded nonsense into the convo.

If life were designed we would expect it to be optimal as their is no rational reason it should not be and mere functionality is not enough.

If life is the result of evolution we expect it to be sub optimal because of the undirected  forces involved but it should still function

Your attempt to compare a car you broke to the nature of life is just absurd .

(July 25, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:Yes, so then it would follow that my car working sub optimally, shows that it evolved, rather than being designed by an intelligent agent.   Never mind, that I was trying to run it through water too fast

Wow a stupid analogy that does not address the point and tries to sneak unfounded nonsense into the convo.

If life were designed we would expect it to be optimal as their is no rational reason it should not be and mere functionality is not enough.

If life is the result of evolution we expect it to be sub optimal because of the undirected  forces involved but it should still function

Optimal for what (or in whose opinion)?   Why do you not think that the same reasoning would apply to my car?    Have you considered, that this argument is based on faulty reasoning and or assumptions?  This is not a very good argument against design or for evolution as is seen easily when applied to my car, or any other thing that we know is designed.   

That and evidence shows that changes by chance are far more likely to cause dysfunction, than to create new functions.

Quote:Optimal for what (or in whose opinion)? 

Depends on the biological function 

Quote:Why do you not think that the same reasoning would apply to my car?   

Nope invalid anology 

Quote: Have you considered, that this argument is based on faulty reasoning and or assumptions?

Nope because it's not 

Quote:  This is not a very good argument against design or for evolution as is seen easily when applied to my car, or any other thing that we know is designed.    

That's just the point that you for refuting your argument for me . You can't compare them .

Quote:That and evidence shows that changes by chance are far more likely to cause dysfunction, than to create new functions.

And that does not refute my point