Atheism vs. God's Existence

[dyresand]

No, he is inviting you, once again, to actually produce your argument. 

A question is not an argument.   If you can articulate an actual argument, we want to read it.

Ok, well to put it simply: information is processed in the cell. The only other information processing system we have ever observed in the whole universe is something designed by intelligence. Because it is the only known cause, it is the best explanation. There may be a better explanation, but don't tell me it is circular reasoning to say that the only known adequate cause may be correct.

Alright ill explain this to you simply i made a AI and watched its progress playing a simple nes game. 
To put it like so generation 1 it did nothing generation 2 it moved generation 3 it learned to jump so skip a head a few generations
it learned to play the game manipulate parts of the map so it could be the level fairly quickly. To put it like so the AI simply evolved on its own
to play the game without my help. So have something like a human like creature given time when it reproduces and has generations of off spring
things change there is no guiding force the body itself changes to the environment the host is in. We have body parts and muscles that no longer
serve function that is left over form evolution. A creator would simply get rid of those parts but he/she/it didn't do it.

[AAA]

I don't really think they would use such strong metaphors in a college biochemistry textbook, but I guess it's possible. I still think they just think that it was designed by natural selection.

And I'm not going to go interview every biochemist

Remember nothing is designed by natural selection; things evolved by natural selection.

So do you think life has features of design? Does a snowflake have features of design? What about the geodesic dome of clathrin molecules around a vesicle? Which of the three have features of design?

[veoli]

Remember nothing is designed by natural selection; things evolved by natural selection.

So do you think life has features of design? Does a snowflake have features of design? What about the geodesic dome of clathrin molecules around a vesicle? Which of the three have features of design?

They all share a powerful illusion of design - but like someone else said in the thread earlier, each species fits nicely into their 'niche' because they have evolved to fit there (perfectly).

[Ravenshire]

Straw: meet grasp.

For any scientific claim to be meaningful, it must be falsifiable.

What is the failure criteria here? What would indicate that some life form was not intelligently designed, and how do you know this? If you have no failure criteria, you are simply making an unecessary assumption.

If the claim is nothing more than a resemblance, then it's of absolutely no significance. I don't know who is supposed to be convinced, or of what. I imagine it's the self being convinced that such beliefs are rational by an equivocation of language.

How is evolution a falsifiable explanation for life's systems?

This question removes all doubt that you know nothing about evolution or even the scientific method. Go harass some other site Trip F. Your willful ignorance, constant repetition and your incessant argument from incredulity are getting tiresome.

[veoli]

Remember nothing is designed by natural selection; things evolved by natural selection.

So do you think life has features of design? Does a snowflake have features of design? What about the geodesic dome of clathrin molecules around a vesicle? Which of the three have features of design?

They all share a powerful illusion of design - but like someone else said in the thread earlier, each species fits nicely into their 'niche' because they have been evolving for millions of years to do so.

[AAA]

I'm glad you are immune to psychological biases constable dorfl. I am perfectly aware. I wrote like a 10 page paper on the topic of what psychological biases influence the decisions we come to this past semester for my brain and behavior class. I read The God Delusion and Signature in the Cell and compared the two. 

Nobody has shown why it is rediculous to interpret the amazing intricacy of life as the result of a mind.

AAA unlike you I am well aware of most of my biases and am actively working on minimizing their effect. If you truly wrote a ten page paper on how biases affect peoples decision making then you'd know the exact irrational basis for your continued support for creatardism, despite its complete inability to describe how life is in its current form and lack if ability to predict anything.

I feel sorry for you, in the peroids where your arrogant ignorant know-it-all posturing doesn't get annoying. You've clearly backed the wrong horse, but you've invested so much in it that you can't back outeven with clear evidence presented to you, and even though your false belief is going to stunt the rest of your life.

Well the last psychological bias I identified in my paper was that we may have a psychological bias to oppose our psychological biases. In other words, when we become aware that we have a psychological bias toward something, we chose to accept the opposite perspective because we are trying so hard to avoid the psychological bias. An example would be knowing that we are predisposed to recognize things as the product of design. When we become aware of this bias, maybe we chose to believe that they weren't designed because it makes us feel intelligent that we were able to rise above a psychological bias. But this has nothing to do with the truth of whether or not it was designed by intelligence.

What is this clear evidence presented to me that you speak of?

[Ravenshire]

(bolding is mine)

Because, if life on this planet is the result of design, it was an absolutely shit-ass designer. Billions of people have died because of stupid design errors that would have been trivial for an omnipotent designer to correct. If Ford did such a consistently shitty job designing their cars, they'd have been run out of business years ago.

Yeah, every engineer who ever lived working together could not do a better job, but YOU have the audacity to say that it is a poor design. People die because the system has degraded. When the DNA mutates, enzymes become misshapen and don't function properly. Then people lose a function and die. It mutates because we live such unhealthy lifestyles. Obesity, poor diet, lack of exercise, the intense number of chemicals in our environment, and many other factors lead to mutations. Are you saying that you want God to literally intervene to fix mutations?

Absolutely I have the audacity to call out a bad design. When the design flaws are the cause of failure, that's bad design. There are a huge number of flaws that would be trivial for an omnipotent designer to have designed better.

[AAA]

So do you think life has features of design? Does a snowflake have features of design? What about the geodesic dome of clathrin molecules around a vesicle? Which of the three have features of design?

They all share a powerful illusion of design - but like someone else said in the thread earlier, each species fits nicely into their 'niche' because they have been evolving for millions of years to do so.

Well that's the story, but is it true?

[Ravenshire]

They all share a powerful illusion of design - but like someone else said in the thread earlier, each species fits nicely into their 'niche' because they have been evolving for millions of years to do so.

Well that's the story, but is it true?

Only you IDiots are claiming it's false.

[downbeatplumb]

This is the first of the wonders of life a bbc production by a physicist who explains life from a physics stand point. Watch all these and have your tiny mind blown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6ouseYUv2w