Atheism vs. God's Existence

[Ravenshire]

Why is it my responsibility to show that mutation and natural selection are inadequate?

Because, you're the one claiming it isn't. Duh!

Shouldn't it be their responsibility to prove that it is adequate?

They have. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that the very idea that there can be ass-hats like you leaves anyone with a rudimentary understanding of it slack-jawed with shock.

[Ravenshire]

Ok, well my biochemistry textbook has chapters called: the molecular design of life, and basic concepts and design of metabolism.

Interesting.  I recommend reading it as metaphor.  Life is designed in the same sense that love is an art, in the same sense as an army marches on its stomach.   

In any case, you haven't shown that biochemists generally agree with your assertion.

Yep. Dramatic license seems to be lost on Trip F.

[robvalue]

Possibility: Life could have been designed, somehow, by an intelligence.

I think most people would agree with that statement.

Observation: Life "looks designed".

Conclusion: Life could actually be designed, or it may not, but just looks designed.

In other words: Life could have been designed, somehow, by an intelligence.

The observation, even if granted, has told us nothing new.

[Pat Mustard]

And it gets worse, there is lots of evidence to show that once you come to a belief, then even being shown evidence opposing your belief (even to the level of discrediting it like AAA's beloved creatardism) will push you to more extreme and strident holding of that belief. There is a stage where nothing will shift you from a wrong belief. Here's a good article on the phenomenon in a political context.

I honestly think that AAA is at this stage with respect to ID and creatardism, and no amount of the rest of us pointing out the sheer ridiculousness of his arguments or the wrongness of his beliefs is going to change them. He has taken on his beliefs too strongly, invested too much emotional effort into them and has owned them so totally that any challenge no matter how well argued or cited is going to do anything but strengthen his wrong belief.

I'm glad you are immune to psychological biases constable dorfl. I am perfectly aware. I wrote like a 10 page paper on the topic of what psychological biases influence the decisions we come to this past semester for my brain and behavior class. I read The God Delusion and Signature in the Cell and compared the two. 

Nobody has shown why it is rediculous to interpret the amazing intricacy of life as the result of a mind.

AAA unlike you I am well aware of most of my biases and am actively working on minimizing their effect. If you truly wrote a ten page paper on how biases affect peoples decision making then you'd know the exact irrational basis for your continued support for creatardism, despite its complete inability to describe how life is in its current form and lack if ability to predict anything.

I feel sorry for you, in the peroids where your arrogant ignorant know-it-all posturing doesn't get annoying. You've clearly backed the wrong horse, but you've invested so much in it that you can't back outeven with clear evidence presented to you, and even though your false belief is going to stunt the rest of your life.

[Cyberman]

I don't know, I cannot read minds. Where are you going with this?

Regardless, if your case consists largely or entirely of negative criticism of your opponent's case, let alone arguments from incredulity, we're not likely to have a very productive conversation.

Yeah, this conversation sucks. You won't answer any questions. If you're waiting for me to show you a video of God, we could be here a while.

Yes, you do seem to have run out of gas before we've even begun. See, you're out of order. We're still at the establishing a case stage; cross-examination comes later. If you're attempting a Ray Cumfart style entrapment strategy, I don't play those games. Nor do I chase red herrings - that's one thing that people learn pretty quickly about me.

Now, for those playing at home, please set out your case for design.

[Gawdzilla]

Not believing in deities is all you need to be an atheist.

Right, but what made you personally decide that God did not exist, and the arguments for atheism were ultimately outweighing all other arguments.

That would be the same ones that applied to other fairies, goblins, dragons, etc.

[IATIA]

Not believing in deities is all you need to be an atheist.

Right, but what made you personally decide that God did not exist, and the arguments for atheism were ultimately outweighing all other arguments.

Never had a reason to believe a god existed in the first place.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Funny thing about the ID crowd: They almost universally posit a Designer that is perfect, then credit it with a sub-optimal creation. Doesn't really help explain things like AIDS, tooth decay and Harlequin Foetus Syndrome.

On the other hand, if life-as-it-exists is the result of natural selection acting on situationally favourable mutations, we'd expect exactly what we see - organisms that aren't perfect, but suited to their particular environments. In other words, just good enough to get by.

Boru

[downbeatplumb]

I'm curious as to how this design process is supposed to be undertaken,

is there herding of the sperm to the egg?
does the designer trip up the "wrong" sperm?
If the sperm is guided why so many?

How come so many pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions.

Basically what I'm saying is that we do see a process and design does not pay a part. At all nada zip zero not a factor.

[AAA]

A snow flake

Your evidence that a snowflake was designed?

Seriously? Does one of you want to define design, because I'm starting to think that none of you knows what it is. It was designed without intelligence;. Clearly it reflects a design as it is highly irregular and geometric.