Science is best supported by?

@kellyjay said
It appeals to the notion that no designer is required, but nothing about what he says suggests it isn’t designed due to what he sees. That he acknowledges looks designed!

Looks can be deceiving.

It is not a concession to say life forms look designed. Of course they do.

But a truth seeker is not satisfied with the most obvious explanation.

@indonesia-phil said
I've given this a few minutes to try to decipher your even worse than usual English. I think you're saying that something is either true or it isn't, which is right out of the school of the blindingly obvious, and if you're saying that there is no evidence for your beliefs, then it might as well be me talking.

Not having a 'reason' is not 'denial' of anything, sinc ...[text shortened]... since the killer is only doing your gods' will, and your god must be guiding the hand of the killer?

Oh, belief indeed has substance, but I cannot prove it to you. And thus, your free will survives. Be thankful.

@moonbus said
I recognize the complexity of our bodies. Organic complexity does not imply design the way mechanical complexity does. It's a false analogy, to compare a human-designed device with a naturally occurring organism.

So which is the bigger miracle?

-Removed-

Same as non-Christians, the cosmos, through observation.

@suzianne said
Same as non-Christians, the cosmos, through observation.

Observation and speculation.

@suzianne said
So which is the bigger miracle?

How life got started is a mystery; God is an even bigger one. Explaining one mystery by appealing to an even bigger one explains nothing.

@kellyjay said
You don’t recognize design the only reason you accept human design is because you know we did it, nothing about its design means squat to you so that you can point to something about it and say this could not occur on its own.

If that were a coherent sentence, I might be able to respond to it.

@bigdogg said
Looks can be deceiving.

It is not a concession to say life forms look designed. Of course they do.

But a truth seeker is not satisfied with the most obvious explanation.

Yes, quite right, and sometimes what is obvious can be rejected out of hand without any reason whatsoever outside of the ideology over substance.

@moonbus said
If that were a coherent sentence, I might be able to respond to it.

You simply don't want life to be designed so your denial is all you got. You can see all of the work done in man-made devices to achieve a task that has to do with human life, the hardware, and software working together to do what is also done within life. Genetic code setups and life's information processing cause it to do what the man is trying to mimic and you still don't WANT to acknowledge it. You are willfully blind!

@bigdogg said
Looks can be deceiving.

It is not a concession to say life forms look designed. Of course they do.

But a truth seeker is not satisfied with the most obvious explanation.

Sticking one's head in the sand isn't an explanation either, if you cannot explain what is right in front of you with a rational explanation yet deny it anyway it then isn't reasoning that is stopping you from accepting design.

@kellyjay said
Sticking one's head in the sand isn't an explanation either, if you cannot explain what is right in front of you with a rational explanation yet deny it anyway it then isn't reasoning that is stopping you from accepting design.

This kind of rhetoric doesn't work.

@moonbus said
How life got started is a mystery; God is an even bigger one. Explaining one mystery by appealing to an even bigger one explains nothing.

God is not a mystery that cannot be known, He is just known on His terms not ours.