(2017-11-21, 07:59 PM)Kamarling Wrote: What we might regard as evidence for design, Dawkins (and you) would call the "appearance of design". However, the whole argument is that such elegant and complex systems don't come about by accident. You seem to ignore that and cling to RM/NS as the only possible way to account for that appearance of design. My contention is that you do so, not because that is the only possible explanation but the only explanation which satisfies your atheist/materialist ideology.
It further seems to me that the whole point of so-called skeptics hanging around on a forum like this is to defend that ideology to the last. The posts by Steve001 are an extreme (and often clumsy) example of that but the rest seem just as closed-minded. Your presence and input is fine by me but I wish you could be honest about your motives.
Can you prove design comes about by non natural means? No, you can't and neither can anyone else that subcribes to that position. Your position on this particular matter offers nothing other than the possible hope of transcendence. A hope that through out human history has never been realized.
Not speaking to you specifically, please don't point fingers about defending an ideology to the last. Folks are just as entrenched, clingy (specifically you this time) on your side.
What is the point of such forums where everyone thinks the same other than to congratulate each other for discovering the real truth. Without diametric opposition this forum would be a near copy of skeptiko.