Yes, too bad a perfectly formed being is less plausible then an infinite number of alternatives.

Yes, Occams Razor and lightning: Thor is easier - it must be the Gods!  Not a complex and specific set of electro-chemical reactions.

Still using that guy!  Wow, is he your new Messiah?

Your problem max is that I do not bring God into this discussion.  Design is not a synonym for God.  When we observed characteristics of events that occur in this universe and investigate the possible explanations there is material causation (necessity based on physical laws) and random chance (contingency based on the inherent uncertainty in particle behavior and the resulting Brownian motion) and there is design (intentional contingency). 

When we look into the inner workings of cells and the metabolic processes we immediately notice the enormously high degree of coherence, the organization and the orchestration.  Closer evaluation reveals an immense degree of encoded deterministic information, communication networks, transport infrastructure, control and feedback system, inventory control, construction and deconstruction systems, etc.   When we look back to the modes of explanation we find that these characteristics are often present in systems that were designed but never present in system that were derived by material mechanisms.  furthermore we note that design has been and is being successful in deriving within cell systems the same kind of characteristics in Genetically Engineering new features in cells that previously lacked that feature.

Now applying Occaam's razor to this portion of the question, design is by far the superior explanation.  It will remain the superior explanation unless and until someone is able to show how materialistic processes can and does achieve the same and better results that Genetic Engineering and the reverse engineering processes occurring in modern medicine.

Notice that I have said nothing about "God".  Notice also that I leave open the possibility that material mechanisms may be revived as an adequate explanation. 

The hypocrite is the person who remains steadfastly cemented to their materialistic prior commitments while claiming to adhere to rational thought and pursuit of truth.  One may never find the truth if prior commitments eliminate one forth of the modes of explanation available.

Not if you're a Raelian or pastafarian, but please, keeping in mind your desire for a simple, Occam's Razor-abiding explanation, tell me how design comes about, what sort of intelligence is behind this design, and how such an intelligence would come to be.

Agreed.


Assuming you exclude the previous examples, and in systems designed by organisms (humans) which function on the kind of "coherence, organization and orchestration" that they base their design around.

In other words, we are proof of design because our creations mimic our own design. Mind-boggling.

 
So, we are able to utilize our ingenuity to engineer new features in cells (note: not exactly "new", they're features ruthlessly plundered from the DNA/plasmids of other cells and, with enzymes, stitched into the DNA/plasmids of host cells), and this is evidence that the things we modify were, themselves, designed? Tell me if I'm missing something here.


Indeed, with your perversion of Occam's Razor, yes, design is "by far" the preferable explanation. Ironically, your version of OR is overly simplified. It's original meaning was that one should eliminate unnecessary assumptions when formulating a theory, to keep it as succinct as possible, and that of two theories of equal credibility, the simpler one is preferable. Design is, of course, the superior explanation, assuming you only factor in the last five words of the previous sentence.

 
What? Says who? Since when is mankind's ability to understand the universe evidence for design? I'd like to see the logic behind this, and until then, please stop making irrelevant ultimatums.


As do I leave open the possibility of a designer, but surely you believe that if something (in this case, everything) were designed, that there must be a designer? Who or what do you think this is?


Really? I consider a hypocrite to be someone who attempts to point out flaws in an opposing argument while ignoring identical flaws in their own.

I wouldn't call him delusional - he's merely the product of an upbringing that's entrenched him in his beliefs, requiring some profound mental acrobatics to reconcile his beliefs with reality. He's certainly not guilty of anything that everyone else in the world isn't guilty of.

I notice RF didn't respond to your post.  I thought you made some excellent points, especially about Occams Razor.

How can he honestly say a Designer is the most simple explanation, when it assumes so many things that aren't even testable, or knowable?