Evidence of design

[AV1611VET]

What does the color Nine smell like?

Three squared.

 

[FredVB]

It seems to me that those who are denying that design is showing in the cosmos and our existence are not understanding the great complexity, how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It seems to me that those who are denying that design is showing in the cosmos and our existence are not understanding the great complexity, how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible.

But here we are & naturalistic explanations are going Great at answering these questions without having to posit an unevidenced omnipotent being.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Three squared.

So, is it better to have, a correct answer, or a made-up answer?

 

[Kylie]

In your opinion, What does the color Nine smell like?

Tuesday, obviously.

(I knew a guy who thought it smelled like Saturday. What a moron! )

 

[Kylie]

So, is it better to have, a correct answer, or a made-up answer?

It's far better, I think, to be able to honestly say, "I don't know," than it is to make up an answer because you are afraid of looking like a fool.

Because when the real answer is discovered (and it will be discovered by science, not religion), the one who makes up an answer will definitely look like a fool then!

 

[Kylie]

IAtheists who deny Christmas as spiritual evidence of Jesus Christ?

lol, you're funny.

Do you think that Eid al-Adha is spiritual evidence that Islam is correct? No? Then why should I consider for a second that Christmas is evidence that Christianity is correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think that Eid al-Adha is spiritual evidence that Islam is correct? No? Then why should I consider for a second that Christmas is evidence that Christianity is correct?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Kylie]

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

How about you not cherry pick?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems to me that those who are denying that design is showing in the cosmos and our existence are not understanding the great complexity

Please, can we finally put this falsehood to rest??
Non-natural design is NOT determined by "levels" of complexity.

I can design something wich is very simple and nature can produce something wich is very complex. And if you think about it for more then 3 seconds, I'm completely positive that you can easily find an example of both.

Get it into your skulls people: complexity is NOT an indicator of artificial design. It simply isn't.

, how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible.

Yea yea... "if things were different then things would be different".

Talk about a useless tautology...

 

[Ophiolite]

Get it into your skulls people: complexity is NOT an indicator of artificial design. It simply isn't.

One could even argue that since the complexity is constructed from simplicity it is inherently simple even though it expresses as complex. Why such complexity should emerge is an interesting question, perhaps better reserved for philosophy than science, but going to the default of "It was God" is rather precipitate. I prefer the default "Well, it's got me flummoxed."

 

[SLP]

Gears. Gears are designed things.

Question begging.

Argument from analogy.

Not very convincing.

 

[SLP]

Biological gears can't [be explained].

Perhaps you can explain how that conclusion was drawn, by whom, and where I can read about it.

There is no randomness and small changes in The genetic code required for a Sombrero to form.

Randomness and small changes. interesting - tell me about your background in genetics.

You seem to be comparing apples to oranges.

We shall see.

 

[SLP]

Regardless the cause, all I'm asking here is are gears designed?

Gears in general?
So, you are going for the argument via analogy?

 

[SLP]

Ok. Prove it.
1. that the gears you showed are designed by man
2. that the gears on the planthoppers legs aren't designed.

Prove that the gears in the planthopper are designed by man.

Given that the only thing we know of that designs gears are humans, you have your work cut out for you.

 

[Ophiolite]

It seems to me that those who are denying that design is showing in the cosmos and our existence are not understanding the great complexity, how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well.

Alternatively we understand that complexity can emerge from a few simple rules, forces and fundamental constants. The geometry of a beehive appears to be designed, but its origin, though fascinating, is not the consequence of design.

Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible.

So what? Your view appears to be nothing more than anthropomorphic arrogance.

It seems to me ... and all working so well.

Since you have no other universe to compare it with I would be fascinated to hear how you know it is working well.

 

[SLP]

Prove that the gears in the planthopper are designed by man.

Given that the only thing we know of that designs gears are humans, you have your work cut out for you.

Hello?

 

[FredVB]

It seems to me that those who are denying that design is showing in the cosmos and our existence are not understanding the great complexity, how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible.

But here we are & naturalistic explanations are going Great at answering these questions without having to posit an unevidenced omnipotent being.

Here we are and explanations are good while disregarding the things that defy explanation without accepting the design there. There is no reason to think the parameters are what they are that make anything of the universe possible, along with us, when slight differences wouldn't have that, and it is only said we are here, and so it is that way. That is not explaining why. You would still imagine something beyond the universe for it, that is just multitudes of unproven universes, rather than the Creator that you would dismiss. Why are we even here knowing the truth, with it really that?

Please, can we finally put this falsehood to rest??
Non-natural design is NOT determined by "levels" of complexity.
I can design something wich is very simple and nature can produce something wich is very complex. And if you think about it for more then 3 seconds, I'm completely positive that you can easily find an example of both.
Get it into your skulls people: complexity is NOT an indicator of artificial design. It simply isn't.
Yea yea... "if things were different then things would be different".
Talk about a useless tautology...

That clearly divided my statement so you could argue against complexity being basis for knowing of God, when what I really said was regarding how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. With however much complexity you can come up with, you can't have it work as well as you, and certainly not with it presuming it can know the truth.

Alternatively we understand that complexity can emerge from a few simple rules, forces and fundamental constants. The geometry of a beehive appears to be designed, but its origin, though fascinating, is not the consequence of design.

So what? Your view appears to be nothing more than anthropomorphic arrogance.

Since you have no other universe to compare it with I would be fascinated to hear how you know it is working well.

Bees show intelligent design. A d we are not explained with a few simple rules.

How is it not arrogance to dismiss unexplained appearance of design showing God?

Excuse me? You don't have any other universes to show, and one with just the parameters to turn out to be a universe that works is not at all likely, and there is no known cause for those independent parameters to be what they are.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Excuse me? You don't have any other universes to show, and one with just the parameters to turn out to be a universe that works is not at all likely, and there is no known cause for those independent parameters to be what they are.

As was just said, we have no other universes to compare with to say that our universe is unlikely - that's why it's often called the appearance of fine tuning. We don't know if the parameters could be different, whether they are different in other parts of the universe or multiverse, or whether quite different forms of life could result if they were different. We don't yet know, and we may never know; you can imagine all you like, but your preferred origin myth is just one of many such imaginative constructions in history.

Incidentally - if, as you say, "there is no known cause for those independent parameters to be what they are", how can you justify claiming 'God did it' ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That clearly divided my statement so you could argue against complexity being basis for knowing of God, when what I really said was regarding how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. With however much complexity you can come up with, you can't have it work as well as you, and certainly not with it presuming it can know the truth.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Perhaps it's due to strange sentence construction or something, but it sounds like gibber gabber.

I can only repeat myself: levels of complexity are no indicators of "artificial design".