(March 31, 2016 at 10:43 am)abaris Wrote:(March 31, 2016 at 10:38 am)AAA Wrote: Why is it outrageous to say that biological systems may have been designed, when intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining what we know about cells? We babble about science and odds because these are the most informative tools for determining if current models are sufficient to explain the formation of life. I could go through a calculation of the odds of a functionally significant protein forming by chance if you want. You can disagree with the philosophy behind it, but disagreeing with the math is not a good idea. Math is the only way to truly prove anything.
It's not outrageous, it's just stupid. In lights of what we learned about the universe, the world and ourselves over the last few centuries.
I think, I already said it, but your obviously the posterboy caveman not understanding the sun and the moon and calling them gods. Worse than that, since now we have the tools to explain a lot of things in nature. Not all of them, but that doesn't mean we have to fill the gaps with god. It's just the same old answer. We don't know - as of yet. But the pile of evidence against your particular scripted god versus him being a reality, is like the difference between the Mount Everest and an Ant heap.
There is no mountain of evidence like you guys keep repeating. And in light of what we have learned about biology and cosmology, I think that there are a lot of scientists who think that there is plenty of evidence of a designer. There are also obviously a lot who don't think that there is a designer. Give me part of the mountain of evidence against a designer being a reality. And I am perfectly happy having the null hypothesis be that the cell was designed until we find a way to demonstrate the likelihood of any alternative hypothesis.
