Intelligent Design

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Can you prove that a designer is required for interacting parts to work together? I don't think you can, therefore your answer should default to "I don't know". If you are going to be a scientist, it's guaranteed you will not get far in any respectable scientific circles when you can't be that honest regarding what you do and don't know.

It is true that I don't know for sure, but I'm not claiming that I am 100% correct, I am just claiming that the appearance of design is best explained by an intelligent agent. I don't know for sure, but neither do you.

I don't claim to know everything, nor really that much, but you are making an assertion which only a small handful of people will support, and your circumstantial motivation is obvious. I am in no way motivated to disbelieve anything if it happens to be true, this is your failure. Moreover, you represent the position of a very culturally isolated group, which is virtually nonexistent outside of the US. This is hardly the "everyone else belives" argument when you consider just who these people are that doubt your ideas, and a lot of them aren't even atheists or agnostic. They just know the difference between science and propaganda, and they aren't stupid.

There is no evidence in support of your design ideas, and by all logic it is the most unlikely means by which any life came to be. What can be asserted without evidence requires no evidence to dismiss it.

[AAA]

Please, watch this.

How order naturally arises from chaos.  It is just the way nature works.  You don't need a designer.  It's all just...maths.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xv1j0n_...shortfilms

I don't want to take the time to watch an hour long video, but let me guess at what it covers. Matter can arrange itself in symmetrical patterns that give the appearance of design. I agree. But the DNA molecule (it's actually two molecules) is not symmetrical, it is an irregular sequence that you would not expect to arise based on necessity such as the symmetry we see in lattice structures like crystals or salt. I looked at the first part of it and it talks about how the elements that make up humans are embarrassingly common, but there is a huge difference between the presence of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, and their specific arrangement into molecules that make up our bodies. Also order does not arise from chaos. We can go to the second law of thermodynamics argument if you like. Entropy increases. Unless you have a system to harvest energy and actively work against the law, then the amount of energy available for work decreases over time according to every observation ever outside of life.

Sorry if I'm way off with what the video is going to be about, but I'm sure you can understand that I don't want to spend an hour of my time watching a video. If not, then you should watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxMkMBXAVZ8

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh boy, entropy..because earth is a closed system.  

You're going through the cretinist playbook awfully fast Trips.

[AAA]

It is true that I don't know for sure, but I'm not claiming that I am 100% correct, I am just claiming that the appearance of design is best explained by an intelligent agent. I don't know for sure, but neither do you.

I don't claim to know everything, nor really that much, but you are making an assertion which only a small handful of people will support, and your circumstantial motivation is obvious. I am in no way motivated to disbelieve anything if it happens to be true, this is your failure. Moreover, you represent the position of a very culturally isolated group, which is virtually nonexistent outside of the US. This is hardly the "everyone else belives" argument when you consider just who these people are that doubt your ideas, and a lot of them aren't even atheists or agnostic. They just know the difference between science and propaganda, and they aren't stupid.

There is no evidence in support of your design ideas, and by all logic it is the most unlikely means by which any life came to be. What can be asserted without evidence requires no evidence to dismiss it.

There are very smart people on both sides of the debate. That is why we are better off looking at the evidence for ourselves, rather than just appeal to others. If the evidence is too complicated, then we need to educate ourselves more to where we can comprehend them. I agree that there are a lot of really bright people who believe evolution, but I think that this is more due to the fact that it has been taught to them as fact since they were very young. Once people reach a decision about what they do or do not believe, they become stuck in their ways, and will twist the evidence to fit their ideology. EVERYONE does this. You, me, and every scientist involved in the debate. The intelligent design and creationist arguments are based on scientific evidence. So is the theory of evolution. They all have holes. Only one is taught in school, so you would expect the majority of the population to accept it.

The inner workings of the cell are evidence. I think that they are better evidence for design than evolution. You can say that it isn't based on evidence if that makes you feel better, but we look at the same facts, just have a different interpretation.

[AAA]

Oh boy, entropy..because earth is a closed system.  

You're going through the cretinist playbook awfully fast Trips.

It's not about closed or open, it's about being able to harness energy and use it to fight against entropy. This ability to harness energy comes from life, or a product of humans' design. Outside of those things, the law is not broken.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Also order does not arise from chaos. We can go to the second law of thermodynamics argument if you like. Entropy increases. Unless you have a system to harvest energy and actively work against the law, then the amount of energy available for work decreases over time according to every observation ever outside of life.

Wrong - life does not violate that 2nd Law which your side loves to trot out, in fact it exists because of it:

Why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Implies That Life Must Evolve Somewhere

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm afraid you've already lost any credibility on the subject of entropy or thermodynamics AAA.

[AAA]

It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?

If everything is designed, how can you tell if something is not designed?

I didn't say everything is designed. I'm talking about the cell, and life in general. You can tell if something is not designed, if it doesn't either accomplish a purpose, have symmetry, have a known history of being designed, have a specific arrangement of characters that gives it functionality. I would say that we can intuitively tell the difference between something that was designed and something that wasn't, but I feel like you would have a problem with that.

[AAA]

I'm afraid you've already lost any credibility on the subject of entropy or thermodynamics AAA.

That might be the worst response I've ever seen. You could dodge anything by saying that. Can you think of something besides life or that humans designed that harnesses energy and uses it to create order?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, because as we all know..only designed objects can accomplish a purpose, possess symetry, have a known history of being designed (lol, the begging!)...or have specific arrangements of "characters" that give them functionality.  It's not as if sticks or rocks exist.



As to your statement directly above....you decided to eradicate your own credibility when you made such an ignorant and demonstrably false claim.  There's no point in whining to me about that.