A case for Natural Design

Pars,
Not that the following example is a "living organism", but might be a natural design minus intelligence example:Snowflakes, elaborate design
- no purpose
- no intelligenceDesign and consistency depends on random factors like humidity ("slush" versus the "fairy dust" type).

You said your two goals were: First of all, snowflakes definitely fit this. Secondly, hate to break it to you, but snowflakes definitely have function and purpose.However, I must concede it does not fit in with your neon green statement, in that it is not a biological system.I must then conclude that you are following the same mistake of your "opponents". You are assuming that Nature gives preference to biological systems because you perceive yourself as having a more important function and/or purpose in the role of Nature than something like a snowflake....right? If not, then I guess you got me "swingin'".

see "goals" by Pars.But as I ALREADY stated in my reply to Pars I conceded that my post did not adhere to the neon green statement.The critique was not about Pars's choice of subject .

1) Actually, as I said, you did....it was the neon green statement AND I conceded the point.- - sigh - -2) Well, I think as do many others that snowflakes, wrt to NATURE, function as a form of precipitation, and the purpose of precipitation is to provide moisture to plants, animals, etc.Maybe you meant to ask me for some other function and purpose?? Or a different definition?3) If I am "wrong" and you are "...assuming nothing of the kind." then why did you specifically ask me "what function and purpose does a snowflake have?"?Look, obviously snowflakes are not a biological system. In one of your posts it seemed that you were trying to claim that there is design without intelligence and for you that seemed to be supported by the absence of function and purpose as well...maybe I got that wrong. However, that is why I thought you were biased because even though it might not be the function and purpose you have in mind that doesn't mean that function and purpose is non-existent.....does that make sense?

1a) I provided ONE example for the function and purpose of precipitation wrt to this planet's NATURE.1b) Clearly you have pointed out exactly what I was originally driving at with the snowflake example.....precipitation is just one of the many cogs in the wheel of NATURE that has gotten us to this point....and I think has probably been instrumental in the way that this planet has evolved....i.e many organisms are reliant on precipitation and not by accident per se (doesn't mean that water is "god", right?)."caring"? human perspective, right? Like I've said before this is a very limited way to judge function and/or purpose.2) Good point, you're right I read back over that and I did see you pointed out the pattern....in light of that I would rebut with: then why is it that something like human emotions can change the way the molecules come together (this I'm getting from 'What the -bleep- do we know')?3) I guess what I don't get is why you think function and purpose is so limited as to be "local"? Since it is my opinon that everything is connected I would tell you that everything on this planet is dependent on something else....thereby every single thing has a function wrt to each other (as "simple" as the eye being dependent on the vascular system). The ability to "see" the depth of this is limited by our own understanding.I have to say that bottom line is I agree with what I think you are proposing: There is design without an intelligent (human construct) designer.....and I think the proof is in the most "simple" of examples and is not limited by our own human concepts of function and purpose.Look, if this is so far off topic then don't respond.