"Now, if you want to assert that X is both possible and is improbable then the conversation ends because you don't understand the contradiction inherent in the proposition and there is no use discussing anything with you."
Actually, you don't understand the presuppositions inherent in your logic. _If_ materialism was true, then your conclusions would be valid.
"You ain't got one piece of "evidence" to hang your hat on for a "Designer." Not one."
Really? Is that why nearly every biologist recognizes the amount of "apparent design" within nature, and, according to even the atheists, have to keep reminding themselves that it wasn't designed? I would say that all of the evidence, even as admitted by atheists, points to design. What happened was that Darwin _thought_ that he had found a mechanism to produce design without a designer. If he did, then that does put creationist arguments largely on ice. If he did not, then you are back to the fact that life exhibits many qualities of being designed.
If you disagree that life is designed, then perhaps you should propose a mathematical model for design, and show why life is not designed according to your model.
It is always an indication of a weak argument when someone presumes to tell another what he doesn't "understand." You ain't in my head and your comment is mere presumption.
_If_ materialism was true, then your conclusions would be valid.
Ahhh, the dreaded "materialism" curse raises its ugly head. In reality materialism has nothing to do with it, the premise I critiqued is logically invalid. Either something is possible or it isn't - but it cannot be merely improbable to the point of impossibility. The premise is self-contradictory, so as the basis of a theory it is a priori invalid.
Is that why nearly every biologist recognizes the amount of "apparent design" within nature, and, according to even the atheists, have to keep reminding themselves that it wasn't designed?
Typical dropping of the context of the argument. "Apparent design" is not actual design and does not prove the existence of a designer which was the context in question. And once again, this wonderful faculty you have for knowing the thoughts of others and what atheists have to "keep reminding themselves" of. Pure fantasy.
I would say that all of the evidence, even as admitted by atheists, points to design.
What you "would say" is precisely that for which you have no evidence. Pure circular reasoning which is merely your opinion. And you go back to claiming design while having absolutely no evidence of a designer.
What happened was that Darwin _thought_ that he had found a mechanism to produce design without a designer. If he did, then that does put creationist arguments largely on ice. If he did not, then you are back to the fact that life exhibits many qualities of being designed.
Darwin was merely taking the evidence of what he had seen and tried to organize that into a coherent whole. He didn't think he had found any such thing and was actually rather depressed with what he was forced to end up concluding.
And once again your word choice reveals the weakness of your position, "exhibits many qualities of being designed". You have to use so many words to say nothing because the premise is invalid. It Begs the Question that you have the absolute knowlege of what "qualities of being designed" constitutes - rather than just "appearing" to be so. This is a conclusion for which there is no "evidence" and is merely an opinion.
If you disagree that life is designed, then perhaps you should propose a mathematical model for design, and show why life is not designed according to your model.
I don't agree or disagree that life is designed, the fact is there is no evidence of it. A theory doesn't have to be seriously considered as valid unless there is some evidence to support it. I don't have to go to the trouble to create such a mathematical model because logic already says there is no need for it.
The visionary genius Buckminster Fuller (you know, the guy who invented the geodesic dome, among 1000 other things) tried his entire life to come up with a term to describe a natural phenomenom which is inaccurately termed. Since we have learned that the sun does not go around the earth, but rather the earth spins on its axis, the phrases "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" are totally inaccurate to describe what is actually happening. They are, in fact, inadequate colloquialisms. But Bucky never found better ones.
The same is true for the word "design". Just because we can't come up with a better word for the nature of the structures that make up the Universe and life, that doesn't mean they are "designed" anymore than the sun "sets". A limitation of language isn't proof of anything other than the limitations of language.