Looks like design to me

[Hmmm]

Yeah and there are no UFOs either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqBU7jd ... ata_player

[Nebula]

Of course there are. Lots of them, seen all the time.

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object

They are objects that are flying that are not identified.

[10Sne1]

After all of my extensive research and life-long learning experiences, I can state, without a doubt, THAT is a UFO (Unidentified Falling Orb).

[Hmmm]

After all of my extensive research and life-long learning experiences, I can state, without a doubt, THAT is a UFO (Unidentified Falling Orb).

"LIKE"

[cliffy1]

Hmmm. Looks like you hijacked your own thread. Interesting.

[Hmmm]

Hmmm. Looks like you hijacked your own thread. Interesting.

lol... I know. Feel free to comment the OP though.

[cutter7]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magaz ... wanted=all

a prominent ex atheist admits intelligent design

[Hmmm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=all

a prominent ex atheist admits intelligent design

There are many scientist who believe in GOD. I personally know one that worked for a top USA lab. I won't mention which one because it doesn't matter but she is a rocket scientist. Either way, when people copy/paste an article that someone says there's a problem with this so called proof, there will be others that say the opposite. The point of this thread was to state the obvious and see if anyone could say...nah that doesn't look designed......yeah it doesn't. If one didn't know that smart people don't believe it, nobody would would question, that the OP picture looks designed. But smart people say it isn't. PS , please nobody call me a SA, I already know i'm being sarcastic. Thank you.

[Nebula]

If anyone wants to look at a picture and believe it is proof of a god, they are free to do so. It is not evidence, however. Nor it should it be, since belief requires no evidence.

[cliffy1]

There are many scientist who believe in GOD. I personally know one that worked for a top USA lab. I won't mention which one because it doesn't matter but she is a rocket scientist. Either way, when people copy/paste an article that someone says there's a problem with this so called proof, there will be others that say the opposite. The point of this thread was to state the obvious and see if anyone could say...nah that doesn't look designed......yeah it doesn't. If one didn't know that smart people don't believe it, nobody would would question, that the OP picture looks designed. But smart people say it isn't. PS , please nobody call me a SA, I already know i'm being sarcastic. Thank you.

You are playing word games. Nobody said the diagram wasn't designed, in fact I said it was created in Illustrator. I know a graphic design when I see one because it is one of my trades. But that diagram looks nothing like a cell.

[fluffy]

It seems to me that the whole point of the OP is that because something exhibits a degree of cleverness or complexity in it's function or appearance that there has to be a conscious intelligence behind it. I don't get the connection. I don't understand the driving force behind what we have come to call "nature" in all it's myriad forms, so that's not to say that the possibility of conscious control does not exist, but until a convincing argument in favour or against comes along I have to stay in the "dunno" camp. For me anything else would be tantamount to a lie.

[cliffy1]

People who have dogmatic belief system require justification for their untenable positions. If there is no evidence to prove their beliefs, then they have to make it up or stretch the simple into a complex and convoluted "proof". It is more about calming their own doubts than convincing anybody else they are right.

[fluffy]

People who have dogmatic belief system require justification for their untenable positions. If there is no evidence to prove their beliefs, then they have to make it up or stretch the simple into a complex and convoluted "proof". It is more about calming their own doubts than convincing anybody else they are right.

Or they justify their own positions by criticizing their polar opposites who occupy equally untenable positions. The article on Anthony Flew linked to above made reference to an early paper of his titled "Theology and Falsification" which closed with the following paragraph:

Now it often seems to people who are not religious as if there was no conceivable event or series of events the occurrence of which would be admitted by sophisticated religious people to be a sufficient reason for conceding "there wasn't a God after all" or "God does not really love us then." Someone tells us that God loves us as a father loves his children. We are reassured. But then we see a child dying of inoperable cancer of the throat. His earthly father is driven frantic in his efforts to help, but his Heavenly Father reveals no obvious sign of concern. Some qualification is made — God's love is "not merely human love" or it is "an inscrutable love," perhaps — and we realize that such suffering are quite compatible with the truth of the assertion that "God loves us as a father (but of course…)." We are reassured again. But then perhaps we ask: what is this assurance of God's (appropriately qualified) love worth, what is this apparent guarantee really a guarantee against? Just what would have to happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to tempt but also (logically and rightly) to entitle us to say "God does not love us" or even "God does not exist"? I therefore put to the succeeding symposiasts the simple central questions, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"

Sort of a wordy way of saying that both extreme believers and non-believers alike share common ground in their resistance to new ideas.

[zzontar]

If anyone wants to look at a picture and believe it is proof of a god, they are free to do so. It is not evidence, however. Nor it should it be, since belief requires no evidence.

True enough, and the same goes for anyone who believes this is a result of lightning striking a primordial soup.

[Nebula]

If anyone wants to look at a picture and believe it is proof of a god, they are free to do so. It is not evidence, however. Nor it should it be, since belief requires no evidence.

True enough, and the same goes for anyone who believes this is a result of lightning striking a primordial soup.

Ahhhh, yes, but what made the soup?