(April 1, 2016 at 7:50 pm)robvalue Wrote:(April 1, 2016 at 7:29 pm)AAA Wrote: We all know you do have beliefs about it. Non designed life would be much simpler. We could calculate the formation of its structures without arriving at unbelievably improbable numbers. It wouldn't depend on information. Life probably wouldn't have developed into slowly reproducing organisms like elephants and other large mammals, because the most fit organism from an evolutionary point of view is that which is able to produce the most viable offspring. Microbes excel at this, and I would expect life to never amount to much more than that. I wouldn't expect it to be dependent on protein machines.
My beliefs are irrelevant. You are making claims, not me.
So you've just described non-designed life, after saying it would be impossible to describe.
How do you know any of this, that you've just described? Your criteria is how simple it is? If I give you a life form, what exactly will you do with it to determine if it was designed or not? You'll do a probability calculation and announce it is designed if your number falls below...an arbitrary value?
If I had a fool proof way to distinguish between designed and non-designed, I would be a nobel prize winning biologist. You are asking the impossible. It would be like me saying: describe in detail the events of the formation of the universe. If you can't do it, then you cannot continue to discuss scientific arguments as you are arguing from ignorance. That would not be fair. You can't ask me to answer one of the greatest questions of all time and then ridicule me when I don't give the answer you think to be correct.