Fine tuning/ programming

In response to Perdition,notice I said Atheism is "a" faith. Here's one of the definitions of faith from the merriam-webster dictionary:faith: (3): something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
(2): complete trustAtheism believes that God does not exist, therefore it is a faith. There's world of difference in saying atheism is faith, and it is a faith and you seem to have taken my comment to mean the former, which is not accurate.Deism can also be reconciled with evolution. I never said that Atheism exclusively is foundational to Evolution. No, no, nnnnnooooo. This is too fast, too early to leave. I was refering to my argument for intelligent design based on a level of complexity and intricacy (and irreducible complexity) that cannot be attained by nature itself. How do you refute that? (leaving aside the whole evolution-faith-atheism discussion, I agree that that deserves a whole new thread in itself, which I have no interest in currently making)Thank you for the second welcome. I feel much more welcome now than before. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Yes, I understand this. What you've done is described some of the intricate complexities of the heart. I agree entirely that they are "intricately complex". However, what I've missed is the bit where you've demonstrated that the heart and/or intricacy and complexity cannot be "attained by nature".Are you putting forward the argument that the human heart cannot be built up naturally over time because it contains "irreducible complexity?" If so, I'll ask you to give us a definition of irreducible complexity (because those given by intelligent design advocates have varied in the past).I'd also need to ask you if you think that mutations never subtract features, but always add them. Do you think this?Then we can perhaps see if you can demonstrate that the heart is unnatural. Agreed. You brought up something called "god", not me. I'm glad. My forgetfulness has actually produced something positive, for a change.

I've demonstrated that:1. having the same 4 parts function differently in two different types of muscle contributing to their functionalities requires foreknowledge and intelligence (therefore, a programmer who possess these).2. Action poential generation falls under the irreducible complex category and therefore is an evidence for intelligent design. Disprove this if you can please. And we'll take it from there.I agree that you missed both my points. You would do me a great favor by actually reading my post (the huge one) this time than just glancing over it. Elaborate.That second sentence is making my brain hurt, heart is unnatural??? *smiles* Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Hmm, this is interesting.......I like this.

No you haven't. Claiming that foreknowledge and intelligence are required in the system that you're describing is not "demonstrating" it. "Irreducible complexity", by any description, is not evidence for intelligent design. This is why I asked you whether you thought that mutations only added features and never subtracted them. If you accept that evolution subtracts as well as adds, then you can forget irreducible complexity as evidence for design. I have read it, and it in no way demonstrates that the heart cannot evolve, or that it requires intelligent design. Systems that appear "irreducibly complex" in modern organisms can exist in reduced versions in other organisms alongside features (and in environments) that the modern organism doesn't share. Isn't someone around here arguing that the heart contains systems that cannot be "attained by nature"?

Yet you seem to be arguing the opposite; that your god got it wrong, and needs to intervene in order to achieve complex human organs (and equally complex parasites).

Nope. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

I have no interest in furthering a discussion where the opposite party does not acknowledge my argument. In other words, if you would like to refute my point--please be objective. If you think that what I demonstrated is not accurate, thats a flaw in your understanding. I've spoken to a number of people about this and have gotten much better replies than "no, you haven't". And if our dialogue is a hindrance for others who are interested in responding to my post, I would much rather not further it, unless you are ready to give me atleast a few obective statements that pertain to my illustration. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

No hindrance here. I'll provide an objective statement for you to consider.There is currently no empirical evidence for deities, whether it be Old Man Coyote, Thor, or any others. There is a lot of belief, but no empirical evidence.Now, you may not agree. If that's the case it would be a good start to provide empirical evidence for the existence of deities before attributing various characteristics, attributes, and accomplishments to one or more of them.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In response to Coyote,I'm going to withhold my answer to your question until I get more replies to the post that demonstrated my argument since I haven't received objective ones yet, and yours is great, but its a different topic. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

OK.And welcome to the madhouse!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Merci beaucoup. Glad to be here.

No Atheism rejects the concept of deities do to lack of evidence thereof. I don't disbelieve in god(s) I don't accept the idea of god(s).Edited by bluescat48, : missing]

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

No, you've *argued*, not demonstrated, that design was required.Theories are explanations and interpretations of the real world. They're developed from detailed observations of the real world, and validated by successful predictions of future observations of the real world.The theory of evolution developed from observations of and validations from the real world. When we examine life we see imperfect reproduction followed by selection of the best adapted. We see descent with modification caused by mutations and, in sexual species, by allele remixing, and we see competition within and among species allowing those organisms whose genes produce the best adaptation to the environment to survive to pass on their genes to the next generation. We do not see a designer inserting improved genes into populations. You're postulating a mechanism for which there is no evidence.As far as the heart goes, any mutations that change the configuration and composition in a way that permits more efficient pumping will be selected for, those that do the opposite will be selected against, and that is all that is required for the design of the intricate interplay of signals and forces in the heart.--Percy

Why not say 'goddidit' and apply for a lot more funding? To find out how goddidit?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin