(January 9, 2016 at 6:40 pm)AAA Wrote: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.(January 9, 2016 at 4:12 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: 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.
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.
Mr. Hanky loves you!