You just described a designed process and then declared it wasn’t designed.
You are misinformed in two ways about this. The first is in your mistaken belief that anyone who knows what they’re talking about believes the origin of life was “spontaneous.” They don’t. That’s a creationist strawman. Life arose very slowly and incrementally with a number of intermediate steps between Life" and “nonilife.”
Th second way you are misinformed is in apparently being completely unaware of the research that had been done in this area and your lack of knowldege that every bit of this process can and has been confirmed as physically plausible. As long as we can show that non-magical explanations are possible at all, then magic can be discarded.
Ha. Yes it was. Are you sure you know what “designed” means?
Hmm examples of undesigned stuff; blue skies, clouds, water, warmth, lightning, aminoacids…
Yes, but not according to KellyCriterion’s criteria.
Boy, those gaps where you keep your god-belief are sure getting small these days!
But even if we grant the proposition that DNA was intelligently designed, the octopus eye is not designed, just because it was formed of parts that were designed. Just like your example of the box of machine parts shaken with glue, yielding something that’s not designed.
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition! Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
KellyCriterion, could you please define “elegant” for us?
Bunny rabbits!
OK Kelly
So there’s this designer that has been putting molecule to molecule, atom to atom over the entire universe for every minute.
Just so that after about millions upon millions of years, a tiny speck floating through all of this chaff of creation, would eventually be populated with cute wittle wabbits?
Is that your belief?
What? you thought it was all about you?
Original or Extra Crispy?
No it isn’t!
Is too!
All this talking about “elegance” is totally nonsensical anyway. As Dio said, it has no scientific meaning. What’s more, all we know is that the things KellyCriterion mentions are elegant to us (and probably not even all of us). Small wonder that an indigenous species to the planet would find its surroundings “elegant.” We don’t know whether the same would be true for a hypothetical god-being, and we don’t even know whether the same is true among animals on the planet Earth. Maybe dolphins have a conception of “elegance” that differs from ours, for instance. A highly intelligent species from another planet might look at the Grand Canyon or the human circulatory system and marvel at how inelegant and clunky they are.
That’s absurd. Any type of replication when there is noise around (in the electronics sense) or variation in conditions will be imperfect. If you see perfect replication, then you can infer design, not imperfect replication. I make my living thanks the the fact that the replication of ICs cause lots of defects. No one designed that fact in, I assure you.
As for life and non-life, what do you call a virus? Are you aware that viruses have been built from DNA?
BTW, you call yourself a deist, but you seem to assume a god who interferes in the universe, which is not what deism is about. I’ve never known a creationist deist. It seems to me that you believe in some sort of god which you keep vague so you don’t get pinned down about its characteristics.
See, elegance is defined by what Kelly considers elegance. A more scientific person might want to test Kelly’s definition against others, but not Kelly. I can define a dog as a fish by the same criteria.
Yes we can. No problem. The RIGHT answer might be “hell if I know”. At least it’s honest. I don’t go for the “god of the gaps”. It’s lazy and sloppy. “A wizard did it” is just a vaild. I don’t go for "schroedinger’s god (he only “manifests” when nobody looks for evidence). Ignorance of a cause or process does not prove anything about a Creator at all. Ignorance only “proves” we don’t know something. I can very easily say animals and plants were not “intelligently designed”. I don’t have to say they were, or they could have been.
I propose a new term for those that describe their religion in this manner-“Vaguenostic.”
Nah… a deist who is vague is a “maybeist”.
That’s exactly what I used to think before I actually read about genuine cases of miraculous healings and the evidence surrounding them in books such as Remarkable Recovery, by Dr. Caryle Hirshberg and Dr. Marc Ian Barasch, The Miracle Detective, by Randy Sullivan, and Lourdes: A Modern Pilgrimage, by Patrick Marnham. From those books and others, I learned about many cases of miraculous healings that didn’t match up with the sort of thing you described. Is there anybody who’s actually done a thorough investigation of the topic and found that all claimed miraculous healings are actually cases that could be mistaken for natural recovery? If so, I’d be happy to read a book or article that makes the case, but when I’ve asked this before no such book or article has been named.
Post #305.
Again.
This is called “shifting the burden of proof.”
To reiterate Czarcasm’s point, can you relate here, what you would consider to be the strongest case from those books which could not be explained by natural recovery?