Now if that's not an unsubstantiated assertion, I don't know what is.
Are you saying the observable universe is not how the observable universe is? That's the point I am making..... And you're calling that unsubstantiated?
Next you claimed:
I don't mean to be this blunt, ellis, but this is nonsense. We discern and legitimately ascribe intelligent design to things around us all the time -- even in the "absence" of the designer. If we see flowers arranged in such a way as to spell out "Welcome," even though flowers are naturally occurring and there's no one around, we don't have a problem surmising that they didn't do that on their own; that there was an intelligence behind it.
You are perceiving things as intelligently designed, then asserting it as truth. What is your justification for tying anything that is naturally occurring to an intelligent force?
No, but it's definitely the implied result.
If you happen across a Boeing 747 parked in a junkyard that for all intents and purposes really had been assembled solely by a passing tornado, I kinda doubt your reaction would be, "Oh well. It's clear that's just how things are," and then justifying such a statement with, "After all, we have no legitimate reason whatsoever to jump to the conclusion that any other intelligent, purposeful forces were at work here."
The Boeing 747 argument is actually one of the strongest arguments against intelligent design when you analyze it.
God is by definition far more complex than the universe, and the ultimate perfection of intelligence. If it's unlikely that the universe could naturally come into being, it's even more unlikely that God could.
In short, God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
The reason we're able to identify the CD as designed is because, by it's very nature, it evinces a designer. You can't tell me that if our memories were erased so that we had no prior knowledge of CDs, computers, or anything, but were still reasonably intelligent, and we were then placed in a completely empty space with absolutely nothing else around but the CD, that we wouldn't still rationally surmise that an intelligence designer lay behind it. Throw in a computer that we could enter the CD into and then actually see what it does, then -- Bob's your uncle -- there would be no question about it. (Or rather, "God's your Creator -- there would be no question about it.")
If our memories were totally erased, we'd have no way of determining if the CD were designed or not. Furthermore, we'd certainly have no reason to justify a belief it was.
Are you either one? (Just wondering.)
I've done some computer programming. I also have a working knowledge of biology, however I am by no means a biologist.
Are you any of those things?
Lol! Ellis, I'm not going to pretend to know the complete context in which Gates made this statement, but I think it's probably safe to assume that he wasn't simply tossing it out there out of the blue. He probably said it in response to his looking into how DNA is structured and how it functions.
Perhaps
Again, nonsense. But I really don't care what term YOU want to use. Even microbiologists use the term 'code' because it describes the inner functions of a cell rather well.
That's not inconsistent with what I said. The code is a description of how the DNA functions. The code is how we perceive it.
Hey, when it comes right down to it, ellis, your argument isn't with me, but instead with who knows how many astrophysicists and cosmologists (many of them non-believers) who have worked all this out and have come to basically the same conclusions I have.
Who cares what astrophysicists and cosmologists have to say about statistics? In this realm, we should care about what statisticians have to say.
We have no reason to assume the universe could have been tuned any other way than it is. Please provide evidence that shows it's possible it
could have been tuned differently.
Ditto
What have you explained? You haven't explained anything. All you've done is denied.
I think it was actually in response to you on another thread that I noted, "None are so blind as those who WILL not see."
We have explained why we have rejected the argument... You have given no reason to show why it's valid.
Oh, I don't have to go through the whole list, do I? Suffice it to say, everybody here with a little dark gray head beneath their 'names'.
So you're claiming we hate something we don't believe exists?
Ok.... Why do you hate Zeus?
Again, there were no explanations, other than insubstantial assertions, often totally divorced from either logic or reality.
It's good to see you are proof-reading your own posts. I would suggest you fix this base flaw in them though.
I'm sorry, I've got to hurry here. Perhaps I'll address any of these later. But for now I'll end with...
Yes, it is the best explanation, for all the reasons I've previously stated. It's not my fault if anybody simply refuses to acknowledge the result merely because they don't like what it would entail for them personally.
How can you possibly call it the best explanation with a total lack of evidence to back your case?
Your entire argument is "It looks designed, so God must have done it". That's the definition of the argument from ignorance.
Back it up with proof, or simply accept it's unjustified.