Intelligent Design

[Mr.wizard]

 For clarity, are you now claiming that natural forces are not responsible for physical laws?  You must be, because the products of natural forces do not, as you've clearly stated just a few posts ago, count as design.

You aren't making sense now..
Let me put this simply

*You said that earth is not intelligently designed as it is the way it is through a bunch of random events or natural causes.
*I said that even though earth is not intelligently designed it's basic building blocks are.
Basic building blocks like each atoms.

Lol, designed by who? Or what?

[Edwardo Piet]

No one. It's not designed. Pool is wrong.

/thread

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

You aren't making sense now..
Let me put this simply

*You said that earth is not intelligently designed as it is the way it is through a bunch of random events or natural causes.
*I said that even though earth is not intelligently designed it's basic building blocks are.
Basic building blocks like each atoms.

Lol, designed by who? Or what?

It's unlikely it was a natural cause or random event although not completely dismissible because designs caused by natural causes have a tendency to fluctuate. Like a rock you see on the ground, which is bound to have fluctuating constraints due to further external involvement.
The only other option seems to be some sort of intelligent being. I donno. I don't know if I'm wrong, but my reasoning seems to be quite right, at least to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

 For clarity, are you now claiming that natural forces are not responsible for physical laws?  You must be, because the products of natural forces do not, as you've clearly stated just a few posts ago, count as design.

You aren't making sense now..

That would be damning for your position, since I'm only relating the consequences of your own statements to you.

Let me put this simply

*You said that earth is not intelligently designed as it is the way it is through a bunch of random events or natural causes.
*I said that even though earth is not intelligently designed it's basic building blocks are.
Basic building blocks like each atoms.

So you're claiming that natural forces do not account for atoms.  I'll quote you if you need to be reminded.

The only other option seems to be some sort of intelligent being. I donno. I don't know if I'm wrong, but my reasoning seems to be quite right, at least to me.

IOW "I'm ignorant and I'm arguing from ignorance, but my reasoning seems to be quite right."  -No.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

You aren't making sense now..

That would be damning for your position, since I'm only relating the consequences of your own statements to you.

Let me put this simply

*You said that earth is not intelligently designed as it is the way it is through a bunch of random events or natural causes.
*I said that even though earth is not intelligently designed it's basic building blocks are.
Basic building blocks like each atoms.

So you're claiming that natural forces do not account for atoms.  I'll quote you if you need to be reminded.

The only other option seems to be some sort of intelligent being. I donno. I don't know if I'm wrong, but my reasoning seems to be quite right, at least to me.

IOW "I'm ignorant and I'm arguing from ignorance, but my reasoning seems to be quite right."  -No.

I don't get it.
State clearly which point you have an objection against and then show your reasons. All I seem to be able to see is information noise, so make your post short if possible.

[The Grand Nudger]

You handled my objection quickly and sufficiently the last time, regarding the earth..it;s the same objection, regarding atoms.  Are you not willing to follow through on your claim?  

Do you believe that natural forces do not account for atoms?  If they do..then, like the earth, they are also not designed - for the same reason (which you decided upon many posts ago).  Let;s check the board here, see where we're at, eh?

Life, not designed.
Earth, not designed.
Atoms, TBD.
Sub Atomic bric a brac, the next place your claim will flee to.

When we finally -do- stop at some level of interaction where you feel that your trolling nonsense can hide in the cover of the unknown...you'll still be dealing with an argument from ignorance, as you made explicit. All-in-all, an impressive failure.

[Mr.wizard]

Lol, designed by who? Or what?

It's unlikely it was a natural cause or random event although not completely dismissible because designs caused by natural causes have a tendency to fluctuate. Like a rock you see on the ground, which is bound to have fluctuating constraints due to further external involvement.
The only other option seems to be some sort of intelligent being. I donno. I don't know if I'm wrong, but my reasoning seems to be quite right, at least to me.

No, your just using one big argument from ignorance.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

LOL.

The only other option seems to be some sort of intelligent being. I donno. I don't know if I'm wrong, but my reasoning seems to be quite right, at least to me.

I donno = I don't claim certainity = I'm keeping an open mind = If someone shows my reasoning is wrong I'm willing to change it.
I don't know if I'm wrong = I think I'm right.

Seriously though, when a discussion is down to the point where I'm called a troll and that my argument is supposedly an argument from ignorance, I've already won the debate.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Rhythm, I don't see any point in continuing with answering your questions.
The only objection you can make is to show that atoms and such are not designed. If you can't do that, then you have already admitted that our world is designed.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't have to show anything at all, Im stating the inescapable consequences of your statements.  The truth of those statements is inconsequential in that regard.  

-Because you've created a set of distinctions for design which exclude those things which arise out of natural forces (I can quote you to jog your memory if you like), atoms cannot be designed..if they are the product of such forces...as we are the product of evolutionary forces.  To hold that the atomic world implies design, by your own definitions and distinctions...you must believe that natural forces do not account for atoms.

I'm only asking if that's what you believe.  That natural forces do not account for atoms. You can understand why I'd need some clarity on this, right? Either you believe in something fantastically silly...or the criteria which you've given me to assess design and it's implications are not the criteria you actually use.