rationalskepticism.org

It's probably subjective, but for example, if someone thinks they can fly like Superman, I would think that it is a stupid idea!

Why?

Probably wrong choice of words, as you are a creationist.

I am? Since when?

What I meant was that the universe is not exactly friendly for life.

Yet we're still here. And in order for us to be here for a second, it has to be finely tuned for life to exist in the first place. Because if the universe didn't support life, we would be here int he first place. Because biologically relevant structures couldn't be formed. Thus, there would be no possibility of life existing in the first place. Yet here we are...

If I was the creator, I would probably make it so that the universe would be more friendly to life. And I would not create cancer and other illnesses like that.

That's very nice of you. But maybe somebody else would.

In order for anyone to say that "the universe was engineered for life", you have to have evidence. Where is your evidence?

I'm not saying that the whole universe was actually designed for life. I'm saying that the design hypothesis is a good starting position for scientific explanation. There is no way to actually show that the whole universe was designed. And the reason why the design hypothesis is a good working hypothesis for science is because we can describe many features of the universe with engineering principles. It makes for a good scientific inqury.

Non-sequitur. How do you go from a hostile to life universe to design? Where is the logical sequence and the evidence?

Because in order for life to exist in teh first place, the universe has to support it. So out of all possible ways the universe could exist, this one exists. One of the possible explanations is design.

Really? No evidence for the multiple worlds interpretation of QM? Someone is very behind on their studies of physics. In fact, there are two major interpretations of Quantum Mechanics at this point, and both are backed up by evidence. One is the multiple worlds interpretation, and the other is the Copenhagen interpretation. The multiple worlds interpretation is also backed up by the experiments on quantum computing.

The Copenhagen interpretation fails the first test of being considered as science. It's logically flawed. It's interpretation that particles can be at two places at the same time is logical fallacy. An apple can't be in two places at the same time. Neither can a particle. And no, just because it's smaller won't help. Because a small apple, no matter how small, can't be in two places at the same time. Thus the interpretation is logically flawed. And if it's logically flawed it's mathematically flawed. And if it's mathematically flawed, then it's physically flawed, thus wrong. Physics can't violate math, and math can't violate logic. Please also keep in mind that nobody ever saw a particle. It's not an observation that a particle is at two places in teh same time, it's an interpretation, and a flawed one at that.

As for many worlds interpretation, it's not logically flawed, there could be more than this one universe. But as I said we have no evidence for them. And making things up without any evidence isn't science. Unless you can show me some evidence.

Again: multiple worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Try "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch or "The Search for the Multiverse" by John Gribbin.

Is there actually an observation of another universe there?

How do the teeth and the eye imply design?

Teeth could be also designed, but it's a stretch, so I'll let that go. But an eye, among other things is a photo sensitive lense. And it's to improbable to have come about by chance. And we have no natural laws, to account for the eye. Thus, we can infer design from the eye.

If I was the designer, I would make it so that everyone's teeth was always perfect, and the same for eyesight. If there is a designer, then he should be fired because he is totally incompetent. If he knew anything about design and engineering (as you claim), then he would have designed people with backup systems, with interchangeable parts, and so on and so forth.

Again, that's very nice of you, but this is at best an emotional not a scientific argument. You don't know the designer's intention for designing something. Just because you would design something in some way, doesn't mean someone else would also. Look at how many different car designs we have. Obviously different designers chose to make things differently.

First of all, there are no backup systems. Where is the heart's backup system? If the heart goes, then goodbye. Even if you can get a new heart, you need all sorts of immuno-suppressants in order for your body to accept the heart.

Does that mean that the heart itself is not designed? There is no backup for a car's engine. If it goes out, your car stops. Thus cars are not designed. Rigth?

In a well-designed system, you only need to shut it down, replace the faulty part, and there it goes without much else needed. In a well-designed system, you leave room for adding functionality, and for improvements.

A badly designed system is still designed.

Let's take a computer for example: if you do buy them as they are served to you, then you may not understand it. However, I mostly like to built my computers, and to choose every part that I put in it. So, I choose the motherboard, model and manufacturer, the CPU, how much memory I will put initially, HDDs, graphics cards, USB, Firewire, eSATA, etc. And I will probably buy some stuff to extend my computer's capabilities and add them internally, not externally. There are more slots usually than I would need, very probably... Now, where is my improvements in the supposed design of me? Can I grow wings and fly? Absolutely not. Can I have a protective exoskeleton? No, nothing like that. Can I see in the infrared or something? I need external devices, that translate the infrared into visible light.

How does any of that make any sense to you? Computers are engineerd. They can be further engineerd and added to. So can human beeings. There is a thing called genetic engineering. In due time when people will have more information about how genomes work, we will be able to furhter develop ourselves. Just we can't develop ourselves further, that doesn't mean we were not designed. Besides, pleople have come very far in medical science. Some people get surgery to have a new heart put in when the original one fails. Obviously we can be engineerd just as computers do. Just because we don't have shops around the corner to buy organs like we have for computer hardware, says nothing about original human design.

As I said, if people are intelligently designed, then the designer must be pretty stupid and should be fired.

Which still means we were designed, only you dislike the design. That is all.