So what if “elegance” doesn’t have a strict scientific definition? Neither does the word “species”.
And yet I can tell the difference between elegant and inelegant about as easily as I can tell difference between a dog and a fish.
If we assume the universe is designed, shouldn’t literally everything look elegant and functional, rather than just a few things here and there? Even if the designer was lazy and/or incompetent he wouldn’t go out of his way to create wasteful, ugly or needlessly painful things just for the hell of it.
Or say, create the human eye, which is clearly less elegant than the octupus eye.
Or it’s perfectly logical.
We don’t know if it’s possible for non-living matter to spontaneously form itself in to life. We do not know.
Hence, to say “we know organisms weren’t designed” is demonstrably baseless.
If you accept that reasoning, it goes back all the way to the design of the universe itself, which makes it circular.
Taking some random machine parts and a pile of glue, throw them all in to a container and shake it up.
The resulting product, we know, was not designed.
Actually we know both of those things are perfectly possible (not that abiogenesis is life arising “spontaneously” from non-life. That is a strawman characterization. The process was highly incremental and slow) and exponentially more probable than magic. In order for a magical hypothesis to be taken seriously, you actually have to show a need for it. There is nothing in DNA that shows design, and everything about its development consistent with expected steps of normal chemical processes. “You can’t prove it’s NOT magic” is not a persuasive argument for magic and just makes any rational discussion impossible.
It’s completely ridiculous to declare that everything could be designed with infinite magic and infinite subtlety, we can’t know anything isn’t designed. And then you tell us to tell you things that are elegant and functional tha we know not to be designed.
You just declared it impossible to know that things aren’t designed.
We know organisms weren’t designed in as far as we know anything. Yes, you can’t absolutely prove anything outside of math and people like you just love to remind everyone of that so you never have to consider anything logical or factual or evidence-based. But we have a complete understanding of how life evolved, how DNA works, how life adapts to its environment - we have completely natural and plausible explanations that are proven over and over again which do not require the extra addition of a designer. Classic occam’s razor - why involve what isn’t necesary in an explanation?
Having no evidence for a designer, and a completely understood natural path to our conclusions is as good as you can practically get as far as proving something isn’t designed. Continuing this line of argument is no more valid than those who say “you can’t prove a negative, therefore pink unicorns exist!”
Haha, we “know” this do we?
Why do people keep trying to replicate the process then? Don’t we already know how it happened?
Since machine parts are clearly designed, you have to discard this example according to your reasoning in the previous posts. Either you accept that evolution can create elegant structures on its own once life got started in whatever way you like, or you will not be able to find, let alone make, anything that isn’t designed.
So it can’t be discussed objectively. Nothing can be agreed upon about it, and it can’t be discussed.
Yes it does.
Cite?
I declared nothing of the sort.
Completely false. There are things we have far greater certainty of than the origin of organisms.
(Actually, we don’t have a “complete understanding” of any of these things) but congratulations, you believe in evolution. So do I.
And I say there is evidence of a designer.
No it doesn’t!
Yes, you did. But I’ll make it up to you: provide me one single example of anything that, according to your previous reasoning, is definitely not designed.
As a reminder, your reasoning is:
- Something that is made up of stuff that might be designed is not definitely undesigned.
- The universe might be designed.
Yep.
We actually have replicated quite a bit of it, and no we don’t know what happened. I didn’t say that. We know what’s POSSIBLE, and that’s all we need to know. Abiogensis is not something that can be fully replicated anyway because it took millions of years, but we have been able to very that the individual steps are possible without magic, which means that magic can be dismissed out of hand.
Sure:
Yes it does. This is not a helpful approach for you.
If God is capable of such infinite subtlety and magic that he’s changing the nature of life in such a way that even though it’s completely explainable by natural processes, it’s not - it may be god’s design - then certainly god can be there right in that bucket, deciding how things get mixed up.
Great. Now I want a God-in-a-bucket! 
Just imagine that you did so. Then you left the resulting product sitting there and someone else happens upon it. Seeing that it has a tab high on one end and a slot low on the other approximately 1.2 meters from one another, he realizes that it will work perfectly for the connecting piece he needs between his fetzer valve and his interocitor.
Imagine that a third person sees how well the machine-parts-and-glue fit between the fetzer valve and interocitor, and concludes that it must have been designed, since it fits so very elegantly. What a maroon, right?
So far, your evidence seems more like a couple of superficially complex concepts connected by no logical, structural or functional relationships.