The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

This experiment has already been performed: but no-one has published the results. Then why do some things fall over? And man can look at a tiger and recognize that it came from two other tigers unintelligently making out.And both these feats of recognition come from prior knowledge --- we know how computers are made and how tigers are made. It is not clear that an ideal reasoner, without this sort of knowledge, could infer these things merely by abstract contemplation of a computer and a tiger.So how are we meant to decide whether the universe is more like a computer or a tiger? Of course, if we could find a label on the bottom of the universe saying "Made In Taiwan", this would be a useful indication ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But in fact cdesign proponentists never say how and refuse to discuss it. You are wrong. I have never heard anyone say "random designation of interation" about anything. And a third class of people, who, unlike the first, actually exist, attribute it to the laws of nature --- which requires no faith whatsoever.

Your meaning is obscure. I have often looked past my nose. In fact, it is impossible for me to look in any other direction.

There are indeed. For example there's real science --- which does not say that "all things randomly came together"; which does not endorse the screwing of domesticated African equids; and which is not a bunch of crazy crap that you made up in your head. Ah, irony.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And science makes more sense than either of those options.

How have you eliminated the other alternatives?

Well, no. Some things happen by chance, some by intelligent direction, and some fall in neither set. Granted, the two sets are disjoint, but I don't see why you assume that they're complementary.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

For example, I do not attribute the six-fold symmetry of snowflakes to design by Jack Frost; but nor do I attribute it to one vast coincidence.Rather, it happens because that's what water does --- it is the result of neither chance nor design, but necessity.

That came out a bit ... metaphysical.I hardly know what to make of statements like this:

And if I see a living organism, such as a tiger, I correctly "assume" that it was the product of a natural and unintelligent process, namely a daddy tiger and a mummy tiger making sweet sweet tiger lurve.I know for certain that the underlying process is very very different from that which would produce numerals on my fridge. And yet you wish to assure me that they are basically the same.Well, just saying so, even if you do it over and over again, isn't going to cut it with me.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But we don't.No-one you're arguing with has ever assumed design.We don't look at the garage and the hammer and assume design. We have evidence for design. No-one ever assumes design ... except creationists.

Hey, someone listened to me!In answer to your question, NO. The mechanisms I described couldn't possibly account for the origin of life. My theorem is about what life does when you've got life in the first place. I know about as much about the origin of life as my bedside table does --- but my argument does (as you kindly acknowledge) show that once life exists mutations can add genetic information to a genome. That's all I claim to have proved.

Don't actually commit mass suicide, so far as anyone knows.

I'm calling tiger sex dumb. When two tigers make out, is this because they have made an intelligent decision to have cubs?But if you want to quibble about this, then how about flowers? Does a daffodil produce pollen with the conscious intention of impregnating a lady daffodil? You seem to have answered your own question so thoroughly that there is no need for me to comment. But this is exactly the proposition that you need to prove.You know for a fact, just as I do, that any particular tiger was produced by a natural process and was not made in a tiger factory. You know that.And yet, being a creationist, you seem to want to advance it as a general principle that the world just doesn't work that way. Well, apparently it does. Actually, no I didn't. What I said, and I shall gladly repeat it, is that every time we know how a tiger occurred, it turns out that it did so as a result of a natural process.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

* sighs *But the evolutionists claim that life was not designed. Our claim is that there is no firm we can telephone.Getting a busy signal? Then we are right. It's if you ever get through that we might be wrong. Petitio Principii. Now being sold under the new brand name I Can't Believe It's Not A Real Argument.Were you dropped on your head as a kid? I try to be kind, but seriously ... you don't see the problem here?The rest of your nonsense is the same. About the fourth time you wrote it, didn't you start to see the problem?