RESPONSE TO AUTODADIC
Wait a minute this makes no sense. If biologist know that it only appears to be designed but really isn't, then why would they be duped into using design theorist?
I didn't say anything about being duped
.
I didn't say you did, and that wasn't the point. Again why would biologist use the aid of design theorist if biologist know that the appearance of design is only illusory? Don't avoid the question.
So you admit it appear to be designed. Very interesting. Ill give you credit for being honest about that.
I think virtually all biologists and posters here would agree that life appeared designed. Common sense tells me complex thing don't happen by itself. I also know what common sense tells me is often wrong
.
How do you know that your common sense is wrong in this case?
Have you ever considered the notion that maybe the reason the universe and biology appear to be designed is because they were in fact designed?
Sure, but that hyprothesis doesn't answer any how or why questions. Where as evolution do offer answers.
I have to disagree. There are many scientist who believe in a designer and they are still doing science. The modern sciences themselves were first taught in universities financed and founded by the church and taught by theologians. Many of the first men of science were theologians and creationist and they didn't let their faith get in the way of scientific discovery. We stand on the shoulders of these men who laid down some of the fundamentals and principles which are still used till this day. In fact the motto was that God showed us how to get to heaven, but man shows us how the heavens are made. As for the why question you can also simply say evolution did it just as easy as you can say a Creator did it.
Its very interesting that this is the only theory where even scientist like Dawkins admit that biology appears to be designed yet you have to discard something that is so abundantly apparent because it does not fit your theory or world view.
It's not like I would embrace creationism if I stop being an atheist. There are prenty of theistic evolutionists, this shows acceptance of evolution isn't fundamentally tied to one's religious views
.
That has nothing to do with the comment. The point is that scientist who defend neo Darwinism disregard something that is apparent and have to tell themselves that it is illusory. This is the only theory I know of that does this and I'm speaking of scientist not the average laymen who might not understand the subject fully.
So you have a different hypothesis than the RNA world which states that RNA was the first replication molecule. OK what exactly was that molecule? At some point you had to start with non living non replicating material.
There are many RNA world hypothesis, they all say RNA predate DNA. What comes before RNA depends on who you ask, last I checked the favorite is that there were self-replicating molecular steps before RNA.
Of course they say that RNA predates DNA hence the RNA world hypothesis.
What comes before RNA depends on who you ask,
What comes before RNA depends on who you ask, last I checked the favorite is that there were self-replicating molecular steps before RNA.
I asked you, and please cite your source. The whole RNA world hypothesis is based on the premise that RNA was the first self replicating molecule. Again please cite your source.
I'm not even sure I understand this response. So I cant comment.
Wasn't that important, just that chemisty happens very quickly when molecules meet, but it seems slow sometimes because the molecules don't meet often.
Thats a non sequitur and that wasn't my point. There are some medicines that can take weeks to work and to interact with your biochemistry and abiogenesis was not just a matter of putting two chemicals together and wala. Some chemical reactions can take much longer. My point was that not all chemical reactions happen instantly and at some point there had to have been non living non replicating matter to start with. Lets not play word games. You know exactly what I mean.
Yes but you claim to know that there was a self replicating chemical that preceded RNA. Again what was this chemical and what makes this hypothesis more superior than the RNA world hypothesis?
Just want to point out the difference between knowing RNA world hypothesis includes pre-RNA self replicating chemical and knowing there was a self replicating chemical that preceded RNA.
Again your speaking in riddles. Please lets speak plainly. I have tried to be honest and have not tried to BS you, and again unless you cite source I cannot confirm your version that the hypothesis includes a self replicating molecule that precedes RNA. I have never heard of such a thing so don't forget to send source.
As for order again see..... Roger Penrose - The Initial Entropy Of The Universe -
When you take all the factors that have to be in place and all at the same time you can either believe in a bunch of coincidences on orders of magnitude times orders of magnitude and the probabilities of this happening on its own as calculated by an atheist with no religious bone to pick as being 1 10^10(123 or you can infer that this kind of luck just does not exist therefore it is reasonable to infer design. There aren't even enough electron in the universe to write all those zeros on. See Rodger Penrose entropy. You would have a better chance of finding 2 wining lotto tickets in your front yard everyday for the next million years. Again that kind of luck does not exist in this universe.
Right, ignoring how Penrose came up with that number for now, I would say with such low chance, it's safe to conclude the universe isn't the way it is by chance. What I don't agree with is that something not happening by chance mean it's designed.
If it isn't here by chance then it must be here by purpose and if that purpose was powerful enough to put that purpose into action then logic dictates that it was design, again I'm not one for semantics. I don't want to get into one of those Bill Clinton "that depends on what the definition of is is" type of (everything is relative discussion) and Penrose is not the only one who has come up with these exponential improbable numbers.
... These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life...
On to the maths. Take 10) for example, if the universe 
is denser then stars would burn too rapidly; 
if less dense would result in a shortage of heavy elements. Ok, simple enough to understand, but how does relate to 1:10^59 as listed under Mass of Universe? Is that saying if the universe is 1/10^59 times heaver or lighter then there would be no life? Then how do you get from that ratio to a probability?
No that means if it varied by as little as 1:10^59. This is the maximum deviation. Do you know how minute that number is? And this only represents just one example.
Quotes of various scientists noting the appearance of design or out right stating it is designed.]
I would say to them, how would you formulate that into a scientific hyprothesis for testing?
It doesn't need to be tested. These constants are already well known and have been for many years. Thats like saying let me measure my kitchen and then asking….how do I test measuring my kitchen? As for formulating it into a hypothesis, you ask yourself, what are the probabilities of this happening on its own without guidance. Again think of what the chances of having a house or radio being built on its own. What are the odds that all these parts would come together on there own? How many coincidence would it take? Literally not even a fraction as the numbers involved with fine tuning. As Hoyle once said "you would have a better chance of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and creating a 747"
