Intelligent Design

[Silver]

The fact that galaxies or planets even exist is incredibly unlikely according to mathematical models that can manipulate values for gravity, expansion of the universe, and other constants.

Incredibly unlikely does not equate to impossible.

The fact that statistically we should not exist does not mean that the fact we do exist is because of god.

Resorting to god is not an answer, and it never will be. Ever.

[The Valkyrie]

Seriously? We're going with "highly unlikely".

Do you want to supply a link to these mathematical models?

Planetary systems around stars seem to be the rule, not the exception as was thought in some circles until not too long ago.

So far we have discovered around 1300 planets outside our solar system.

Seems those mathematical models are incorrect.

[AAA]

but then aren't you incorporating faith that there will be an alternate answer to explain the qualities of design without a designer?

Not at all.

Not having an answer is no reason that one should be subjectively provided for the comfort of one's curiosity.  

When the answer is provided, it will be because science has provided it in accordance with evidence.

I agree that that is how the answer will be gotten. And I don't know if this is what you are saying, but the idea of a God doesn't comfort me. It is actually kind of disturbing, but I think this is where the evidence points.

[The Valkyrie]

It MIGHT do this.

THis is currently an unconfirmed speculation.

I don't know that I would call it speculation. It has evidence behind it. What's keeping people from accepting these functions are their evolutionary presuppositions.

Nonsense.

What stops people accepting these claims is a lack of peer reviewed confirmation.  It, as I believe I responded to the same argument once before, is still being researched, looking to confirm this possible finding.

THat does not mean that the appendix isn't an evolutionary dead end.

[Simon Moon]

So, a thing that you don't understand, is in a realm that you can't tell if it even exists, and it does things in ways that you can't fathom, and somehow you think this has any explanatory power?!

And your entire reason you accept this, is because of some vague passages in a Bronze Age text of mythology.

Yeah, you're doing science alright.

If you go back to where I first started talking about the higher dimensional creature, I said specifically that it was just a thought, not scientific, and I even said to the guy "don't tell me later that I am making an assertion because these are just thoughts."  I am not trying to get anyone to believe in multiple dimensions, I was just throwing a thought out there.

What you are doing, and have been doing in this entire thread, is one big, long argument from ignorance. 

The things you are claiming have the "hallmarks of design", do not. 

Design is not detected by complexity or analogy, as you are doing. Design is detected by contrasting it with things that occur naturally.

You believe that the entire universe is a product of design, down to every grain of sand. Yet you ignore all the grains of sand (that are a product of design), and bring up all sorts of complex natural mechanisms within cells, and make these your examples of things that must have been designed.

Why are you skipping over all the designed grains of sand when pointing to "god designed" things?

[ApeNotKillApe]

I side with reason as much as other people who also side with reason.  Dawkins is no exception despite your prejudice.

What's your rational answer to the fine tuning of the universe, genetic info in cells, interacting parts in cells? They all have qualities with characteristics of design? you can say "I don't know", and that's fine but then aren't you incorporating faith that there will be an alternate answer to explain the qualities of design without a designer?

On fine tuning, if the universe and life can only possibly exist under these precise, perfect conditions, how much "designing" did God really do? Wasn't he constrained by those same rules of 'fine tuning'? Wasn't he essentially following assembly instructions, forced to do things only in a certain way because otherwise it wouldn't work?  And if that's the case, if he's limited by a bunch of rules, he's not really God. God should be able to make things work however he wants, surely.

[Silver]

I agree that that is how the answer will be gotten. And I don't know if this is what you are saying, but the idea of a God doesn't comfort me. It is actually kind of disturbing, but I think this is where the evidence points.

You are presupposing. Science does presuppose, in the form of a hypothesis, but do you remember what happens when the evidence from the experiment never supports the hypothesis?

What experiments have you performed to show that your hypothesis can be proven in any way?

[ApeNotKillApe]

Given the opportunity to redesign things, I wouldn't include an appendix that exists solely to get appendicitis.

It cultivates bacteria to aid in digestion. You don't need it, but it does serve functions with digestion and immune health. 

Given the opportunity to redesign things, All the engineers who have ever lived couldn't do a better job.

I'd like you to consider how many people throughout history have died very painful deaths for no other reason than an organ that they didn't really need in the first place contracted the sickness that was only contracted by that specific organ that they didn't need in the first place.

[Simon Moon]

It cultivates bacteria to aid in digestion. You don't need it, but it does serve functions with digestion and immune health. 

Given the opportunity to redesign things, All the engineers who have ever lived couldn't do a better job.

I'd like you to consider how many people throughout history have died very painful deaths for no other reason than that an organ that they didn't need in the first place became infected.

The number of people that died from infections of impacted wisdom teeth (because we have a gene for more teeth than out jaws can handle, an atavism from our ancestors with bigger jaws), dwarfs the number of people that died from appendicitis.

[AAA]

Seriously?  We're going with "highly unlikely".

Do you want to supply a link to these mathematical models?

Planetary systems around stars seem to be the rule, not the exception as was thought in some circles until not too long ago.

So far we have discovered around 1300 planets outside our solar system.

Seems those mathematical models are incorrect.

Who cares if we found planets outside the solar system. It is fine tuning of the universe, not fine tuning of the solar system. 
You should read the book The Privelaged Planet, or watch the documentary, which describes how rare the conditions that permit life. Obviously rare and highly unlikely arguments aren't always good, but it's still interesting.

Here's a couple articles about the cosmological constant.

1. [Susskind2005] Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2005.
   
   
2. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php