Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

How is it a faith-based presumtion to think that something in the natural world has a natural cause?Wouldn't the faith part be the invoking of a SUPER-natural cause?To presume something in nature had a natural cause is, well...only natural.
______________________________________________________________________Example: You walk into the woods and notice a tree has fallen.Do you A: Presume that it fell due to natural causes? (to include man cutting it down since we are a part of nature)Or do you B: Invoke that a SUPER-natural force HAD to be responsable?Without questioning which presumtion is the right presumtion, which of the 2 choices would you say is faith-based?
______________________________________________________________________Lets apply that same logic to species.Do you A: Presume that a natural cause was responsable and gather evidence to support a naturalistic cause?Or do you B: Presume that it can only be the work of a SUPER-natural force(s) and gather evidence to support that?Ignoring whether or not one is a better way to the correct answer than the other, which of the 2 would you say is faith-based?If you think that they are both faith based to a certain extent, then I would agree. However, as it has been pointed out to you before, history has shown that ALL natural phenomenons have been easily explained through natural causes. So it is only natural to seek natural causes when observing a natural phenomenon...naturallyHowever, if you care to give an example of where it has been better to invoke the SUPER-natural, and have had results with this presumtion(and can provide evidence to support it), then I would love to see it.TTYL...

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

That should read, "CREATIONIST do not necessarily presume natural processes...".The other problem with that statement is the word 'presume'.Science does NOT presume natural processes, science studies the natural processes. Are you tell me you don't see any natural processes that can be studied in the field of Abiogenesis, and so you HAVE TO conclude a Creator?However, you stated that, (we, you, creationist), 'do not 'presume' natural processes...maybe the problem is that you shouldn't be PRESUMING anything. Yes, but no one other than creationist think that nature was 'designed' to work. So again this only seems an 'intelligent supposition' to someone who already believes in a Creator. You are putting the cart before the horse. Yes, but at what point would you become overwelmed with ridiculous 'possibilities'? We can't listen to EVERY possibiliy now can we? We should narrow it down to REASONABLE possibilities right? Simply put, no one has any evidence for something 'other' than natural causes when natural phenomenons have been observed.Key word here is: evidence. I'll accept that as a good answer. But lets look at it a bit closer. You say its based on 'imaginative senarios'.Well name a solid theory that HASN"T been based on imaginative senarios?Imagination is what drives progress wouldn't you agree?The key is to keep things in perspective. Long ago an eclipse, based on imaginative senarios, was said to be the work of the Gods. However, along comes science, and based on equally imaginative senarios, concluded that it was the orbiting of the planets that gave us eclipses. Imaginations where used to explain both however, one keeps natural process in perspective, while the other does not. Agreed. But where is there not sufficient evidence on something, and no scientist is working on it?It seems for every possible question there is a field in science dedicated to it, with many scientist working on every possible answer. All you are saying is that YOU have a problem with the answers because YOU believe things look created...and why do you believe they are created? Because ou believe in a Creator....you are putting the cart before the horse again.TTYL

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

Yes, thats what it's always been, but where is your evidence against 'no-design'?You are simply stating that it looks designed, and therefore there is a designer and convinently enough your religion also has a designer. You put 2 and 2 together and you've made the case for yourself, however you have not made a case to the rest of us who have asked for the evidence...the evidence that you say is clearly observable in nature. Name 1 natural phenomena that was proven to be explained ONLY through non-natural or supernatural causes. It's taken as that because it IS that.What would be YOUR definition of a designer? Correct, there of the theological realm... Thats a retorical question right?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Do you generalize science simply for amusement?Is this really your argument? My evidence starts with the fact that there is NO evidence for a Designer, therefore the rest becomes null.Complexity does not automatically equal design. Also note that the Designer would have been responsable for non-complex things as well, so then non-complexity would ALSO equal design. At that point the whole argument about judging complexity or non-complexity and determining a designer based on that, falls apart.Also the fact that the Designer would be complex and by your definition also requires design, im sure you've heard that position before. It is something you need to deal with if complexity is your only reason for requiring a Designer.Designer requires a Designer, period.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky