What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[Meandering Atheist -J-]

And how's that? Jesus on dog ass? Clearly designed?

That might be the longest amount of time I have spend looking at a dog's butt, except maybe when my dog was trying to pass the carpet he ate.

[ignoramus]

And how's that? Jesus on dog ass? Clearly designed?

That might be the longest amount of time I have spend looking at a dog's butt, except maybe when my dog was trying to pass the carpet he ate.

A bit like watching the US election candidates on TV.
Eventually one will emerge but it will be a dog's breakfast either way!

[Cyberman]

Let's hope it's not the shitty rug.

[LadyForCamus]

^^

The issue though is you haven't really given an explanation, except an argument from incredulity.

Saying you don't know is fine. But that's not what you said, is it?

I don't know how it happened, but I DO know that it wasn't just mutation and natural selection. I also think that intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining cellular biology, so that is my default conclusion until something else can explain it better. Do you want me to explain how the designer did it or what? It manually linked amino acids together and DNA to form a functional system. How's that?

If by your own proposition, this type of complexity could never be random and needed an intelligent designer, then who designed your designer? Surely an intelligent designer of life on earth would have to be unfathomably complex in comparison, so by your own rules how was it/he/she designed, and by who? Infinite regress much?

I mean, if you find the idea of life arising from non life utterly improbable, how the hell could you possibly entertain the idea of a supreme, supernatural being popping into existence from nothing? What you are asserting is far more outrageous than what you are rejecting. It makes literally no sense at all.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You have repetitively, and dubiously claimed to be a university biology student.

Where are you studying?

Who are you studying under? What's his/her name and title?

Does this person believe your above statement on peer review?

I'm not going to say where, because I don't want to hurt the reputation. Also knowing my luck, one of you would contact them and wine and complain and get me in trouble. It is in Iowa, it is a catholic school that teaches conventional science and does not entertain the idea of ID. I'm and undergraduate, so I'm not studying under any one person. I have plenty of professors, and strangely enough I've never had a conversation with any of them on peer review.

I just want to know at which school you are learning anything on the subject which you claim to understand so well that that you feel you can rule on its possibilities, and who else there with an authorized opinion on biology may agree with your ideas. I did not ask for your name, so you shouldn't have to worry about providing the requested information unless it happens that you have been abusing school resources while on this site. I have no personal interest in that anyway, and I care much less for the interests of a Catholic school. The thought of contacting any professors who would agree with you never even crossed my mind, and I doubt they would talk to me anyway, but I'd be interested in knowing who they are in the scientific community through any online information.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Wait...

Not overly concerned with peer review?

If that's isn't an anti-science motto, I don't know what is. The absence of peer review is "making shit up".

AAA seems to want to play both sides, science and anti-science, whichever is convenient at the time.

It's not like if it isn't peer reviewed it's making stuff up. Peer review is simply a good way to make sure that experimenters don't overlook things in their study, that they didn't fudge the data, and that they conducted it well. Do you have to rely on peer review for every one of your beliefs? Do you have a peer reviewed paper that describes your day yesterday? is everything you say about it then a lie? Also when's the last time you've read a peer reviewed paper? I know you aren't going to answer truthfully if you answer at all.

Welcome To AAA's Café!

Today's Special:
Red Herring Tu Quoque Grilled In White Whine de Arragón

[robvalue]

Thanks Hanky, correct analysis.

My my. That question is so utterly ridiculous that I can't bring myself to answer it.

I'm afraid you've blown any last scientific credibility you might have had. This kind of thing is why I gave up talking sense into you last time. ID is not submitted for peer review (at least not outside of ID circles) because it's not science and it would be ripped to shreds. Real scientists encourage scrutiny, not hide from it.

[ignoramus]

You know the greatest irony.
He has exerted more energy into trying to make everything he thinks he knows fit his fairytale, than with half the energy expended, he could have been a much more knowledgeable biologist. What a waste. I'm actually worried that he's not pretending anymore. He actually believes his distorted view of the world. That would be sad indeed.

[abaris]

I'm not going to say where, because I don't want to hurt the reputation. Also knowing my luck, one of you would contact them and wine and complain and get me in trouble. It is in Iowa, it is a catholic school that teaches conventional science and does not entertain the idea of ID. I'm and undergraduate, so I'm not studying under any one person. I have plenty of professors, and strangely enough I've never had a conversation with any of them on peer review.

Your reluctance to share and what you have to say on peer review and your professors not being very interested, leads me to the conclusion, it's a christian college of some kind. Don't worry, you can't hurt their reputation.

[GUBU]

Bolded the one honest word you've said on this matter, and the most important word. Seems is not the same as is, just because something looks designed to you doesn't make it designed, especially as you've amply demonstrated that you've a woeful grasp of biology and what evidence is in general.

Underlined the second most important section. Yes, appearances can be interpreted as evidence, but unfortunately for you, they are not evidence. When you conflate the two reach phrases 'seems like' and 'can be interpreted as' you yourself are acknowledging (probably subconsciously) that you have no case.

Truly, as I described you last month, you are an arse brained creatard idiot. Oh, and by the way, how does it feel for you to get schooled by somebody who doesn't even have a science degree, especially with all your boasting about how great a student of biology you are? Stuff I remember from  20 years ago, and stuff I've picked up from popular science books are more scientificially valid that the santorum that emanates out your arse every time you try and prove god by disproving evolution.

Yeah, things aren't always as they seem, but because it seems that way, the null hypothesis should be that it was designed. If things that are only found in designed features are also found in cells, then that is evidence of design.

And the fact that you don't have a science degree is showing.

No, design cannot be the null hypothesis, just as evolution isn't. Design is positing a creator being who put everything together, a positive claim as to how everything happened. Therefore you need to present evidence, better than that for evolution, in order for your hypothesis to become theory. As a biologist you should know this, it is one of the basics of the whole scientific method (for example I learned it at age 11 during my first science class of secondary school).

So, again you fail at the simplest ideas within science, proving conclusively that you are no biologist and that you have been constantly lying about your crdentials. At this stage I'm wondering if Junk Status is being too generous to you, and I'm thinking I should start calling you Ponzi.