Science is best supported by?

@kellyjay said
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!

This is just a bad argument on your part.

The fact that humans design artificial devices to use in living bodies does not prove that the living bodies themselves are designed.

@kellyjay said
Why are you responding to things I say?

Because this is a forum for discussion, and I'm sure you are about to say, 'But you don't care what I believe', and I don't, but not caring about what you believe and asking you to justify it are two different things. If you talk nonsense on a public forum, people are going to pick you up on it. Anyway I'm going 'quiet' for a while, I've got other things to do, but your total inability to address even the most fundamental questions about your beliefs has, I'm sure, been noted by all.

@kellyjay said
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!

No, I am not willfully blind. We are both looking at the same reality. But you are projecting your own imagination into nature and 'seeing' imaginary causes where there are none.

You see a pattern, I see it too. You think all patterns are designed, so you think there must be a Designer who wanted it to be so. I don't, I accept that the repetition of natural processes exhausts the explanation of naturally occurring patterns.

If you look at sand dunes from high above, you will see a pattern, repeating wave-like formations. The same if you look at the surface of a bay from high above: you will see patterns in the waves. You think there's a Mind doing that. I think it's nothing but natural laws we're looking at. Same applies to molecules and DNA. You think God jiggles molecules to make DNA; what an absurdly silly and trivial thing for a Transcendental Being to do, jiggle molecules. I think chemistry exhausts the explanation of life. There is no evidence of the Hand of God pushing molecules around.

Let us know when you have a working transcendental causality detector.

@bigdogg said
This is just a bad argument on your part.

The fact that humans design artificial devices to use in living bodies does not prove that the living bodies themselves are designed.

The fact we have to design them to do complex work that the body does on its own is not a testament for mindless evolutionary changes springing up from under a rock or a warm pond without purpose or a guiding hand!

Having systems within systems doing complicated work with precision is never seen as a result of mindlessness, and we find information processing monitoring systems, that start and stop reactions, while keeping reactions limited to the need. Only one brain dead can look at what happens in the body and think mindlessness is responsible.

@kellyjay said
The fact we have to design them to do complex work that the body does on its own is not a testament for mindless evolutionary changes springing up from under a rock or a warm pond without purpose or a guiding hand!

Having systems within systems doing complicated work with precision is never seen as a result of mindlessness, and we find information processing monitoring ...[text shortened]... ed. Only one brain dead can look at what happens in the body and think mindlessness is responsible.

Well, then I guess you're arguing with a bunch of brain dead people, myself included, and that makes you brain dead, because an intelligent person wouldn't waste time arguing with such. 🤣🤣🤣

@kellyjay said
Only one brain dead can look at what happens in the body and think mindlessness is responsible.

Come down off your high horse, kellyJay. I've got a crick in my neck.

@indonesia-phil said
Because this is a forum for discussion, and I'm sure you are about to say, 'But you don't care what I believe', and I don't, but not caring about what you believe and asking you to justify it are two different things. If you talk nonsense on a public forum, people are going to pick you up on it. Anyway I'm going 'quiet' for a while, I've got other things to do, but you ...[text shortened]... to address even the most fundamental questions about your beliefs has, I'm sure, been noted by all.

I have never said I don’t care what you say or think unlike you. You are doing what now, talking out both sides of your face? Engage or dry up, be consistent for crying out loud!

@bigdogg said
Well, then I guess you're arguing with a bunch of brain dead people, myself included, and that makes you brain dead, because an intelligent person wouldn't waste time arguing with such. 🤣🤣🤣

Looks that way to me, the elegant design of life you think is the end product of mindlessness that started without a definitive reason towards no particular purpose. Brain dead sums it up perfectly well.

@kellyjay said
Looks that way to me, the elegant design of life you think is the end product of mindlessness that started without a definitive reason towards no particular purpose. Brain dead sums it up perfectly well.

Brain dead sums it up perfectly well

So, let's get this straight. One of your 'arguments' is the assertion that BigDogg is "brain dead", is that right?

@fmf said
Observation and speculation.

Physics is the same physics everywhere. Same table of elements. Chemicals combine in the same way everywhere.

Less speculation than you think. You're arguing KJ's side.

-Removed-

Of course not. Not without an update.

Should everyone accept the idea that Prometheus brought fire to mankind?

@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.

Mystery, miracle.

Tomato, tomato.

I was speaking at least semi-colloquially.

@suzianne said
Physics is the same physics everywhere. Same table of elements. Chemicals combine in the same way everywhere.

Less speculation than you think. You're arguing KJ's side.

You have missed the point. We can but speculate about supernatural things. KellyJay sees natural things and then makes what he thinks are objective claims about supernatural things. To claim that I am "arguing KJ's side" reveals that you either haven't really been following what is being said or you haven't understood it.

@moonbus said
No, I am not willfully blind. We are both looking at the same reality. But you are projecting your own imagination into nature and 'seeing' imaginary causes where there are none.

You see a pattern, I see it too. You think all patterns are designed, so you think there must be a Designer who wanted it to be so. I don't, I accept that the repetition of natural processes exhau ...[text shortened]... pushing molecules around.

Let us know when you have a working transcendental causality detector.

You claiming there in design working out complex issues is your denial of reality. Seeing systems work out complex tasks isn't imaginary it is information-driven in any walk of life, suggesting mindlessness could do it is your delusion.

@kellyjay said
You claiming there in design working out complex issues is your denial of reality. Seeing systems work out complex tasks isn't imaginary it is information-driven in any walk of life, suggesting mindlessness could do it is your delusion.

Seeing systems work out complex tasks isn't imaginary

Why are you using the word "tasks"? Aren't they functions? Why are you stating that systems "work out" something? Don't you mean they simply work in a certain way?