Nothing random about them. And science starting to understand this .
Random is the apologist's word, along with accident. These processes may be quite deterministic. The proper word is unintended, unplanned. And science is not turning to religious ideas, if that's what you mean by "starting to understand." There have been no discoveries that suggest that there is anything about the universe that was planned until the advent of sentient, intelligent life.
It makes the atheist uncomfortable, which is why they are pushing unrealistic scenarios like multiple universes.
So you consider the multiverse ridiculous, but a god perfectly reasonable, do you? That's a special pleading fallacy. A multiverse is much more likely to exist than a deity. A deity is the thing least likely to exist undesigned and uncreated. Isn't that the argument for why we need one - living cells are too complex to have arisen undesigned and uncreated? It's your argument below.
Complexity is not a proxy for intelligence. Blind nature routinely assembles very complex entities.One way to tell the difference between what nature has created and what only intelligence like mans can create is that nature has the means to build galaxies, solar systems, and living creatures without intelligent oversight, but computers do not. One can observe a human being being assembled in a womb with no intelligent oversight. The various elements involved - ribonucleic acids, enzymes, nucleotides, lipid membranes, etc. - can all be made automatically, and an organism will be assembled. There is nothing analogous for computers. Blind physical forces never assemble computers without an intelligence directing them. Arguing against the one by citing the other doesn't hold water.
natures process aren't blind... that's just an assumption and one that is falling away in science.
Yes, they are blind as best we can tell, as there is no reason to think otherwise based on the study of the cosmos. And once again, no to your claim about there being a change in science about nature being telic.
the fact that it's a complex process of creating shows us a designer.
Your claim was that the process was not blind. Nobody is in the womb directing the organic elements as they assemble into life. The process is completely automated and orchestrated by the blind, passive laws of physics
Did you want to try to rebut the claim that complexity is not a proxy for intelligence? You seem to be reasserting what was challenged without commenting on the challenge. What is complexity? Roughly speaking, it refers to the number of parameters necessary to specify all of the features of an object or process. A homogeneous sphere is less complex than a mountain range because it can be specified with fewer parameters. But this complexity in the mountains - the parameters necessary to specify its 3D contours and composition such as what minerals are present and how and where they are - doesn't simply doesn't imply intelligent design.
The intelligent design people understood this. They never called complexity a sign of intelligence. They cited irreducible and specified complexity as markers for intelligence.
Does that make sense to you? One example of a person changed without a god belief falsifies your position.
Obviously you don't understand what I mean by change.
Is this another No True Scotsman argument? Somehow, the falsifying change in somebody such as my transition out of Christianity was a major, life-altering change accomplished without a gd belief. But for some reason, that doesn't count according to your definition of change no doubt contrived to exclude the falsifying examples.
One thing that always struck me about the watchmaker argument for divine creation is how the author failed to note that his character wanders past countless natural structures in a heath until he comes upon a watch, and recognizes that it had a designer and creator. If the argument is that everything else he walked past unnoticed was also from a designer, why did he not offer those shrubs as evidence rather that the watch? Answer: He understood intuitively that they are radically different kinds of things. He knows his audience will also recognize that the watch cannot be natural, but not think that about the remainder of the surroundings.
Sounds like you totally missed the point of the story.
No. But it seems you missed the point of my analysis of it, since you didn't bother to comment on it beyond that. There's no evidence you understood what was written there. Don't you think a proper response should not look like a Magic 8-Ball answer. That answer of yours could be one of the answers in that toy, along with, "Don't count on it," "Outlook not so good, and "Very doubtful." It's equally nonspecific, equally generic and all-purpose.
Do you ever rebut? It seems that all you do is dismiss comments with the wave of a hand and issue more unevidenced claims that don't address the argument made. A rebuttal is a specific kind of dissent, no other type having any value in dialectic. It is a counterargument that if correct, makes the argument it counters incorrect. If one's reply doesn't do that or even attempt to do that, it is irrelevant to the debate topic. You've seen this in courtroom trials. A prosecutor makes a plausible argument of guilt. The defense MUST counter with an explanation for why the prosecution cannot be correct, or the trial is over. If the defense doesn't rebut the evidence and argument, it loses. Merely disagreeing and offering comments that don't rebut the prosecutors argument is no more useful in defending the defendant than, "We have no defense, your honor," and is understood to mean that to the jury.
That's where you are here. That's your status - the guy with no rebuttal. Where's your counterargument? All I see is you waving your hand in dissent.
