Atheism vs. God's Existence

[Ben Davis]

No, I don't believe in the all out story of evolution, but I seem to be doing just fine with my science classes. I haven't relied on it, and I think that thinking of it as designed systems makes it easier to understand.

You're missing the point. This isn't something that requires belief, it's something you have to accept because it's a fact. A fact that's as certain as classifications in the periodic table. If you don't accept evolution as fact, you are not going to fare well in your biology classes, irrespective of how you think you're currently doing.

[AAA]

You still never told me how evolution was falsifiable. Give a criteria.

Fossilised bunnies in the Cambrian period.

Remember, I said I wasn't questioning geological time. Also, that would not falsify it, that would just cause them to revise it. Out of place fossils are found all the time. I remember reading about a fossil of a horse giving birth from millions of years ago that wasn't supposed to be where it was. Another common example is the ceolocanth being absent from the fossil record for 65 million years, yet still being alive. These things don't falsify evolution, they just cause the theory to be revised.

[Mister Agenda]

I specifically said that I was not questioning geologic time. The fact is that when we look at the physiology of living systems, there is no way to falsify evolution. In other words,  there is no way to find any biological process that would falsify evolution.

And that entitles you to throw out paleontology and the fact that we can predict where specific undiscovered fossils can and can't be found entirely as evidence?

The fact that every example Behe used for 'irreducible complexity' (and that others have proposed) wasn't actually irreducibly complex doesn't mean that a biological process can't be irreducibly complex in principle, it's just that nothing has so far turned out to be so. One good explanation for that is that all biological processes are the result of evolution. But if evolution is not actually the case, an irreducibly complex biological process that can't be the result of the forces we understand to be at work in the formation of organisms naturally can turn up any time.

[AAA]

No, I don't believe in the all out story of evolution, but I seem to be doing just fine with my science classes. I haven't relied on it, and I think that thinking of it as designed systems makes it easier to understand.

You're missing the point. This isn't something that requires belief, it's something you have to accept because it's a fact. A fact that's as certain as classifications in the periodic table. If you don't accept evolution as fact, you are not going to fare well in your biology classes, irrespective of how you think you're currently doing.

Well someone likes assertions. It isn't a fact in any sense of the word. And don't tell me that I'm going to do poorly in my biology classes, I have done very well and I still have a 4.0 science GPA. I know you won't believe that (because you don't want it to be true), but it's true.

[Mister Agenda]

Fossilised bunnies in the Cambrian period.

Remember, I said I wasn't questioning geological time. Also, that would not falsify it, that would just cause them to revise it. Out of place fossils are found all the time. I remember reading about a fossil of a horse giving birth from millions of years ago that wasn't supposed to be where it was. Another common example is the ceolocanth being absent from the fossil record for 65 million years, yet still being alive. These things don't falsify evolution, they just cause the theory to be revised.

What revision in the theory of evolution do you think would account for bunnies in the Precambrian while leaving the basic theory unbroken? The 'horse' fossil you're referring to was an Eohippus, and 40-60 million years old is about right for one of those. The fossil of an actual horse that old would be a major discovery that might force a return to the evolution drawing board, a horse predecessor not so much. Coelacanths moved to deeper waters and left fewer fossils, no revision of evolution required to account for them.

[Mister Agenda]

No, I don't believe in the all out story of evolution, but I seem to be doing just fine with my science classes. I haven't relied on it, and I think that thinking of it as designed systems makes it easier to understand.

You're missing the point. This isn't something that requires belief, it's something you have to accept because it's a fact. A fact that's as certain as classifications in the periodic table. If you don't accept evolution as fact, you are not going to fare well in your biology classes, irrespective of how you think you're currently doing.

He might be going to a Christian college. Even if he's not, it's possible to get good grades in a field that you don't accept the findings of. I know good microbiologists and physicians who are creationists. A creationist can have excellent credentials in a field of biology. They just tend not to do work that produces peer-reviewed papers that successfully support creationism or intelligent design. Not because they aren't smart enough or proficient enough at their field, but just because the evidence that would support their opinion is hard to come by.

[rexbeccarox]

No, I'm asking for your evidence that it was designed. "Was designed" and "features that look designed" are two different things, and my question is specific to the former.

https://www.google.com/search?q=design+d...e&ie=UTF-8

de·sign
dəˈzīn/Submit
noun
1.
a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
"he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
synonyms: plan, blueprint, drawing, sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, draft, representation, scheme, model
"a design for the offices"
2.
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"
synonyms: intention, aim, purpose, plan, intent, objective, object, goal, end, target; More
verb
1.
decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.
"a number of architectural students were designing a factory"
synonyms: plan, outline, map out, draft, draw More

By definition, design requires intelligence, a plan, intention, thought. Maybe you'd like to try another example of something that is designed but doesn't require intelligence?

It looks like it goes under number two. If you are going to define design as something that requires intelligence, then it is by definition impossible to find an example of design that did not require intelligence.

I'm not defining it that way; that is the definition.

Maybe you should think of another word, and maybe you should go ahead and chuck your belief in... wait... what was that called? Intelligent Design? If you can't name the designer, you're missing a pretty serious step in proving design.

Also, you should quit bitching about the theological part of the "debate" in a thread titled "Atheism vs. God's Existence" in which you're asserting design.

[AAA]

It looks like it goes under number two. If you are going to define design as something that requires intelligence, then it is by definition impossible to find an example of design that did not require intelligence.

I'm not defining it that way; that is the definition.

Maybe you should think of another word, and maybe you should go ahead and chuck your belief in... wait... what was that called? Intelligent Design? If you can't name the designer, you're missing a pretty serious step in proving design.

Also, you should quit bitching about the theological part of the "debate" in a thread titled "Atheism vs. God's Existence" in which you're asserting design.

Read your second definition

[Esquilax]

You're missing the point. This isn't something that requires belief, it's something you have to accept because it's a fact. A fact that's as certain as classifications in the periodic table. If you don't accept evolution as fact, you are not going to fare well in your biology classes, irrespective of how you think you're currently doing.

Well someone likes assertions. It isn't a fact in any sense of the word. And don't tell me that I'm going to do poorly in my biology classes, I have done very well and I still have a 4.0 science GPA. I know you won't believe that (because you don't want it to be true), but it's true.

So I'm curious: if a fact is not something that has been borne out by observations across multiple fields of study over a span of time of 150 years or more, surmounting every new discovery and new technology capable of testing it, not to mention intense scrutiny from ideologues with a bias against it, then what exactly is a fact to you? What could possibly qualify, if evolution does not?

[Whateverist]

The prior and more important question is why do you think the intricate 'design' of things implies a super-omni cosmic watchmaker at all?  Must every factoid regarding the arrangement of a thing's parts reflect a decision by that Guy?  Your way of thinking about this doesn't seem at all intuitive to me.

I don't 'hate' the idea of an afterlife so much as I find it silly.  It doesn't jive with what we experience.  

But since you've decided that the bible is the can't-miss reference book of the world par excellence, you just can't help using it to screen every finding of science and the evidence of your own senses.  I'm sure it isn't even a conscious decision on your part by now.  I have to say I feel a little sorry for you on this account.

Are you serious? I never even mentioned the Bible, then you say that I use it to screen every finding of science??

Well where else do you get the idea that every critter, snow flake and element was turned out on the cosmic watch maker's own bench? There are other creation stories of course. So perhaps I did rush to judgement. I suppose you might subscribe to Navajo mythology?

If we are going to stereotype, then you (as an atheist) are: arrogant

In this exchange perhaps I did come on a little strong. But there is another side to me you haven't seen. I also enjoy gardening, candle lit dinners and long walks on the beach.

..and thinks they are smarter than every theist by definition;

It may not be obvious from this exchange but no, I definitely don't think that. I do however believe the kinds of pet, unfounded beliefs you theists hold to cause a lot cognitive dissonance and that that can only hamper understanding .. no matter how smart you may be. Drop that millstone and you go further.

you like to do drugs

Of course, though more so in the past.

and have sex

Who doesn't? (Do Navahos believe in prudery too?)

a lot

Define a lot. I am not young. Less can be more.

because there will be no punishment for a reckless lifestyle;

Patently untrue. There is diabetes, sclerosis of the liver, brain impairment and any number of other consequences for excessive recklessness in anyone's universe.

and you think that we should all just do what makes us happy and find our own meaning in life.

QFT