(December 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm)AAA Wrote: There is plenty of evidence that points to a designer. Information rich cells and the fine tuned universe are old but good arguments that give the appearance of design. When you first see it, the conclusion should be intelligent cause.
Begging the question isn't my cup of tea.
(December 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm)AAA Wrote: Materialistic explanations fall short continuously, which ironically inadvertently ends up making it more likely that the design conclusion is correct.
Wait, you think it's more plausible that some undefined sky-being poofed this into existence than it is for 13 billion years of physical processes to have sculpted it? Why is that?
(December 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm)AAA Wrote: I think there is plenty of evidence from biology that supports a designer.
I disagree. The numerous "design flaws" demonstrated throughout nature tell us that biology was a ground-up enterprise building on what came before it without the guiding hand of some invisible sky-being that you cannot even define in meaningful terms.
