Discussion for AronRa and OFNF exclusive thread

[Miracles4Real]

One of my favorite Atheist Youtubers is Ozmoroid. He did this great video on science taking whatever crazy wacky "woo" idea and then working to falsify it.
Crazy ideas like turtles all the way down.
Even Gods might be proposed.
All can be intuited and proposed and then we can work to falsify them and maybe a few turn out to be true or alter our understanding and upgrade our intuitions.

That step seems, to me, to be critical in science. using your intuition to imagine a particular outcome and then working to falsify it.

I think that relativity may have never been realized if the intuition for a medium for light to travel through (in what was known as the luminiferous aether) had not been first tested for and falsified. It took Einstein to tell them that there is no medium for light, light is constant.

I think some people believe that the way to do science is to just say "I don't know" forever. About everything and to never have the courage to actually propose an idea that can turn out to be wrong. Science is a process that benefits from courage and intuition.
Here is the video I mean:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV1ETmuV5ps

 

[Darkprophet232]

Yet another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Miracles4Real]

Yet another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You really should watch the video.
Those people who believed the world was flat and their shifting of the burden of proof!
Those people who believed the sun revolved around the earth and their shifting of the burden of proof!
Then they tried to propose crystal domes to account for the planet's retrograde motion! Where was their proof that the planets were inside of crystal domes?!
The dream up this wacky idea just because it "accounts" for what they see?!
that's not science! Science is saying that you don't know anything and then just hoping to fall into the answer right on the first try.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Then please tell me what would falsify a designer. Since you feel that a designer is just as scientifically testable as the shape of the Earth and its orbit, this should be a simple task then for any scientist.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I disagree with your claim that the universe seems finely tuned. If anything, the universe appears to have emergent properties. For example, a snowflake appears highly ordered, but we do not claim a god created every snowflake. Thus, you are positing your placeholder, god, as an answer to something that actually does not exist. However, feel free to demonstrate that the universe is finely tuned.

If I saw a snowflake and didn't know how ice crystals form so that they look like such perfectly symetrical little sculptures- Then I don't think it would be totally senseless and incoherent for me to say "Given the available information, I think this snow flake was made by very creative little fairy people"
Sure I'd be wrong, but who could fault me for that?
As long as I am wiling to change my mind when ice formation is explained to me.

You are positing creative little fairy people, while having no evidence that creative little fairy people exist. Thus, yes, it would be very senseless to posit them as the creators of anything without first demonstrating they actually exist. The only sensible thing to do would be to state that one does not know how they are created, if one does not know about ice crystal formation. It is dishonest to make up answers (which do not actually answer the question) to answer questions. Furthermore, you seemed to miss the point I was making, as if you only read half of that paragraph. You are positing that the universe is finely tuned; I reject that idea for the simpler explanation of emergence. Now feel free to prove me wrong and demonstrate that the universe is actually fine-tuned.

Furthermore, why even posit a god as the placeholder? It appears that there already is a term for that, i.e. “finely tune”. Until this fine-tuning is actually demonstrated to exist, there is no reason to give it any extra title or speculate about what caused it. You are placing the cart before the horse.

If you want I'll use the word "fine tuner" but it just doesn't really evoke the thing I'm trying to express. If I said "I believe in a fine tuner" I think people might say something like "oh you mean, like a God" and I'd have to go "uh yeah."

:facepalm:

The thing you are trying to express (god) is posited by you to explain fine-tuning. You do not have to change god to “fine tuner”; you need to demonstrate that fine-tuning actually exists. You are first claiming, with no justification, that the universe is finely tuned, than you go on from there to claim that the reason it is finely tuned is a god. You have not provided evidence for the former, let alone the latter assumption you are positing. Essentially, you are making up a problem and claiming that your made up answer accounts for your made up problem.

Also, thank you Darkprohet232 for already pointing out that Miracles4Real missed my point completely. Twice Miracles4Real has demonstrated poor reading comprehension in only one short response.

In addition, dark energy is not a “for now” answer. Dark energy is the title given to the phenomenon of the universe still expanding. It does not answer anything; it simply describes what we observe. It still needs to be answered.

The universe is a big unknown phenomenon that we all experience and observe. God is a title given to address the apparent (snowflake like) symmetry in the universe.

Now it is symmetry? I would agree there is symmetry, but fine-tuning, as you positing earlier is, in my opinion, much more than just symmetry. Furthermore, you no longer need to use the term god if symmetry is truly all a god explains, because emergence already accounts for the symmetry observed in the universe.

I have no evidence for a God that you can look at and I don't care to convince you. I see no reason why you should be convinced given my total lack of evidence. However I feel like there is a God...

Your deist view of a god is something this forum rarely ever sees (e.g., dandan and Onceforgivennowfree are both young earth creationists). I can respect your feelings, and just want to say that deism was my last step to atheism. The reason being is that a deistic god (one that started the universe/life and stepped aside to watch) is no different, in practice, from there not being a god in the first place.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

I think some people believe that the way to do science is to just say "I don't know" forever. About everything and to never have the courage to actually propose an idea that can turn out to be wrong. Science is a process that benefits from courage and intuition.

I have no idea who thinks of science that way.

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

As I can attest, this is how science is done. People make a guess, tests the guess and either abandon their guess based on the evidence or tell others about their guess so they can also test it. that is exactly how the frontier of science is forged.

 

[Inferno]

2. DNA is plastic.

I disagree!

:lol:

 

[Rumraket]

Well excuse me then, but:

 

[AronRa]

So yes or no.

Does your article represents your proof for evoluton? or is this article just part of OFNF education?

Once again, if you want yes or no as answer, ask a yes or no question. This question was a choice of two options. Now OFNF did say that I should provide evidence that ATP could form by natural processes, and he said that I should show the same thing for protein folding. But notice that in each case, his expectation is that if I can't explain that, then evolution is 'dead in the water', but if I can explain it, there is no concession on his side. His whole game is to keep looking for holes in my position while refusing to acknowledge any substance therein. Meanwhile he also has to distract from the fact that his (and your) position is nothing but a hole with no substance whatsoever. My point in large degree is that of the two positions, only mine has any substance at all, and I have quite a lot of it.

*this is the article I am talking about
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579304010841

The evolution of A-, F-, and V-type ATP synthases and ATPases: reversals in function and changes in the H+/ATP coupling ratio



Aronra

First you asked me, "What evidence do you have that there is a biochemical pathway to create such a motor, such that each mutation provides a beneficial advantage?" So I showed the illustration, answering that question. The link I gave you to A. Mulkidjanian, Osnabrück had another link at the bottom for the Full PDF. There was no subscription required.

Yes or No…
Are you saying that this article provides the beneficial mutations required to evolve an ATP Motor?

No, as I already explained, the Osnabrück study did list the mutations with regard to the necessary changes in structure, but they were only discussing the assembly of the structure itself. They identified those mutations by the ubiquitous genes and the variations in the genome that were recorded, but they didn't identify the type of mutations involved, nor the mechanics of how each mutation prompted the specific changes described. That's why I added the 2nd citation from Upstate Medical, because their study does talk about the type of mutations and not so much about the incidental chemistry or the architecture. You should take both studies together for a more complete picture.

 

[AronRa]

I think some people believe that the way to do science is to just say "I don't know" forever. About everything and to never have the courage to actually propose an idea that can turn out to be wrong. Science is a process that benefits from courage and intuition.

Science is a means of improving understanding. Think of it as a game of 20 questions, where every new piece of information could be a new revelation, but it also keeps you closing in on the real truth. Religion is less than useless in that regard because accuracy and accountability are paramount, and there is no way to know or test or confirm or measure or validate anything asserted on faith.

 

[dandan]

ARONRA

Once again, if you want yes or no as answer, ask a yes or no question. This question was a choice of two options. Now OFNF did say that I should provide evidence that ATP could form by natural processes, and he said that I should show the same thing for protein folding. But notice that in each case, his expectation is that if I can't explain that, then evolution is 'dead in the water', but if I can explain it, there is no concession on his side. His whole game is to keep looking for holes in my position while refusing to acknowledge any substance therein. Meanwhile he also has to distract from the fact that his (and your) position is nothing but a hole with no substance whatsoever. My point in large degree is that of the two positions, only mine has any substance at all, and I have quite a lot of it.

Ok yes or no..
Does the article provide a naturalistic mechanism that would build an ATP motor?

Yes or no..

Is this alleged naturalistic mechanism “Darwinian evolution” (random mutations + natural selection)

No, as I already explained, the Osnabrück study did list the mutations with regard to the necessary changes in structure, but they were only discussing the assembly of the structure itself. They identified those mutations by the ubiquitous genes and the variations in the genome that were recorded, but they didn't identify the type of mutations involved, nor the mechanics of how each mutation prompted the specific changes described. That's why I added the 2nd citation from Upstate Medical, because their study does talk about the type of mutations and not so much about the incidental chemistry or the architecture. You should take both studies together for a more complete picture.

So yes or no.

Does your article represents your proof for evoluton? or is this article just part of OFNF education?

Once again, if you want yes or no as answer, ask a yes or no question. This question was a choice of two options. Now OFNF did say that I should provide evidence that ATP could form by natural processes, and he said that I should show the same thing for protein folding. But notice that in each case, his expectation is that if I can't explain that, then evolution is 'dead in the water', but if I can explain it, there is no concession on his side. His whole game is to keep looking for holes in my position while refusing to acknowledge any substance therein. Meanwhile he also has to distract from the fact that his (and your) position is nothing but a hole with no substance whatsoever. My point in large degree is that of the two positions, only mine has any substance at all, and I have quite a lot of it.

*this is the article I am talking about
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579304010841

The evolution of A-, F-, and V-type ATP synthases and ATPases: reversals in function and changes in the H+/ATP coupling ratio



Aronra

First you asked me, "What evidence do you have that there is a biochemical pathway to create such a motor, such that each mutation provides a beneficial advantage?" So I showed the illustration, answering that question. The link I gave you to A. Mulkidjanian, Osnabrück had another link at the bottom for the Full PDF. There was no subscription required.

Yes or No…

No, as I already explained, the Osnabrück study did list the mutations with regard to the necessary changes in structure, but they were only discussing the assembly of the structure itself. They identified those mutations by the ubiquitous genes and the variations in the genome that were recorded, but they didn't identify the type of mutations involved, nor the mechanics of how each mutation prompted the specific changes described. That's why I added the 2nd citation from Upstate Medical, because their study does talk about the type of mutations and not so much about the incidental chemistry or the architecture. You should take both studies together for a more complete picture.

It would be fantastic if you could copy-paste that list or explain in what paragraph, or sentence can someone look at that list.
I read the article and found no such list.

So do both of the papers together represent your proof for evolution or are they still part of OFNF´s education?

 

[dandan]

No you haven´t please provide a source and copy´paste the portion where the autor proves that darwinian mechanisms can build complex eyes form "simple" Photosensitive nerves

Which of this you do not accept:
1. The development of the eye in mammals is controlled by DNA.
2. DNA is plastic.
3. Mutations can accumulate.
4. There is a different then zero probability that the accumulation of mutations could form the same sequence that encode an eye for mammals.

If you accept all of this. (which you already did). Then you have already admitted that it can, either you realize that or not, Your claims that it is to unprobable isn't a matter of either it can but a matter of either it did.

Yes I agree with all of them.

In the strict sense the chances for a tornado to build an air plain from a junk yard is also different form zero, but for any practical purpose we can say that the chance for that happening is zero.

It is you the one who has to show a statistical model that represents the chances of evolving an eye and then prove that you have enough probabilistic resources to achieve such goal.

 

[Rumraket]

It is you the one who has to show a statistical model that represents the chances of evolving an eye and then prove that you have enough probabilistic resources to achieve such goal.

We have already been over this nonsense. There is no use calculating these kinds of prior probabilities, they tell us nothing about whether it will probably evolve or not.

Why do you keep asking for a number you can't use to conclude anything?

 

[Rumraket]

In the strict sense the chances for a tornado to build an air plain from a junk yard is also different form zero, but for any practical purpose we can say that the chance for that happening is zero.

False analogy. The process of evolution it nothing like a tornado. For starters, there is no reproduction or natural selection.

 

[Miracles4Real]

Then please tell me what would falsify a designer. Since you feel that a designer is just as scientifically testable as the shape of the Earth and its orbit, this should be a simple task then for any scientist.

I hope I can end this now by pointing out, more directly what I've said several times by answering this question directly-Yes.
Yes if I discovered that the finely tuned qualities I see in the universe were actually just emergent properties from a necessarily existent multiverse of universes, each with different laws and constants or that the universe somehow could not really be any other way-I'd change my mind.
At least about that particular aspect of God.
Though I admit that it has a few other prongs (in social systems for example) It could be completely dissolved in those too. Many scientists get the sense that the universe is'nt emergent but instead is finely tuned, I'm reading up and looking to be convinced though I feel like I'm at a moment of contention within the scientific community. I don't know if it can be answered just yet.

I hope you noticed how your rhetoric and desire to fight me made you turn science into an unworkable system that would screech to a halt because everyone is saying "I don't know" until they somehow come to an answer without speculating, worse yet, that answer becomes permanent and unchanging and a "road block" to knowledge- because you weren't willing to listen to what I was actually saying and demanded that I be some closed minded, scheming, Christian apologist shill? I think it's pretty disturbing actually.

I mean I've said, several times, that I'm willing to have my mind changed on the God thing but you demanded that I must NOT be just because I told you that the evolution question isn't something that addresses God, as Aron Ra deftly pointed out.
I wonder if this experience will cause you to be less vitriolic and scientistic and actually listen to what people are actually saying rather than twisting it into what you need so you can battle it out. Hate that's become so comfortable, like old leather, that you can't do anything but hate, is an enemy of reason.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It is you the one who has to show a statistical model that represents the chances of evolving an eye and then prove that you have enough probabilistic resources to achieve such goal.

We have already been over this nonsense. There is no use calculating these kinds of prior probabilities, they tell us nothing about whether it will probably evolve or not.

Why do you keep asking for a number you can't use to conclude anything?

As Master_Ghost_Knight once again demonstrated, dandan actually accepts evolution and evolutionary theory, yet has an a priory bias against it so he cannot openly admit that he accepts evolution and evolutionary theory. Thus, dandan has to set up logical fallacies, and call that evolution so the doublethink in his mind will not turn into cognitive dissonance. If he were just honest with himself, he would not have to use logical fallacies, and could just admit what everyone else can plainly see.

 

[dandan]

It is you the one who has to show a statistical model that represents the chances of evolving an eye and then prove that you have enough probabilistic resources to achieve such goal.

We have already been over this nonsense. There is no use calculating these kinds of prior probabilities, they tell us nothing about whether it will probably evolve or not.

Why do you keep asking for a number you can't use to conclude anything?

Ok, since my statistical models are wrong, please provide your own “correct” models

False analogy. The process of evolution it nothing like a tornado. For starters, there is no reproduction or natural selection.

I never meant to imply that a tornado is analogous to evolution, my intention was to demonstrate that even though some things are not 100% impossible, they are extremely unlikely and we can safely conclude that it never happened.

 

[AronRa]

It would be fantastic if you could copy-paste that list or explain in what paragraph, or sentence can someone look at that list.

I don't understand you request. From the sentence you just wrote, could you copy and paste the word that tells me what it is that you want? Because I can't be bothered to read and might understand things if I did.

I read the article and found no such list.

List? What list were you looking for?

So do both of the papers together represent your proof for evolution or are they still part of OFNF´s education?

Once again, proof is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, not one piece alone. It's like being unable to see the forest for the trees, or being unable to understand the essay because you refuse to look at more than one sentence at a time, or asking for a list of only one item, or from an essay which contains no 'list'. If your whole position depends on deliberately blinding yourself this way, then why both engaging us at all? Why is sincerity always the thing most obviously absent in any discussion with creationists? Why not just admit that you don't care about reality and go pretend to be Batman?

 

[Darkprophet232]

I hope I can end this now by pointing out, more directly what I've said several times by answering this question directly-Yes.
Yes if I discovered that the finely tuned qualities I see in the universe were actually just emergent properties from a necessarily existent multiverse of universes, each with different laws and constants or that the universe somehow could not really be any other way-I'd change my mind.
At least about that particular aspect of God.

You didn't even get close to answering my question. It was not yes or no, and it had nothing to do with your opinion of god. You are really bad at reading other people's posts.

I'll ask again, what would falsify your god? We falsified a flat earth by proving the earth is round, we falsified a geocentric universe by proving we have a heliocentric solar system, we falsified spontaneous generation by boiling milk. The most you've done is explained how I could change your god concept. I don't care about that, and science doesn't either, and I suspect that even if we could prove the Universe was emergent, you'd just alter you understanding again so that you could maintain your belief.

I hope you noticed how your rhetoric and desire to fight me made you turn science into an unworkable system that would screech to a halt because everyone is saying "I don't know" until they somehow come to an answer without speculating, worse yet, that answer becomes permanent and unchanging and a "road block" to knowledge- because you weren't willing to listen to what I was actually saying and demanded that I be some closed minded, scheming, Christian apologist shill? I think it's pretty disturbing actually.

Please, for the love of your god, stop putting words in my mouth. If it would make you feel better, watch some Angry Atheist Youtube videos and yell at him. But since you're here, talking to me, please actually respond to the things I'm saying (and others, if you would). Secondly, that's not how science works. It's not done by a random person screaming nonsense at a bunch of scientists, and then waiting for the scientists to disprove it. That's why we have the burden of proof. If a scientist thinks he has a solution to a problem or another kind of advancement of our understanding of something, it is on him to find proof of it. It has worked this way since we first utilized the scientific method.

What you're supposing is that a group of people get together, conjecture something almost randomly, say that the universe is finely tuned without explaining what that means, and then wait around for someone else to prove or disprove it. This group finally concludes that science is no longer working because astrophysicists and cosmologists are working on their own hypotheses and theories. The burden of proof is why science works and how peer review fetters out liars and cheats. You make a claim, you supply the evidence. Otherwise scientists would be wasting their time on investigating any number of fairy tales. Why do you fight this so hard?

Imean I've said, several times, that I'm willing to have my mind changed on the God thing but you demanded that I must NOT be just because I told you that the evolution question isn't something that addresses God, as Aron Ra deftly pointed out.

You can say whatever you want. You aren't willing to defend your conjecture anymore and I have a very long post you've completely ignored - as opposed to others where you just ignored large swaths of them. You're demanding that others have to disprove your claim of a supernatural designer, otherwise science isn't working anymore. You won't define what this designer is or what you mean by the universe is finely tuned, and you've changed what this god is that you want others to disprove. How is anyone supposed to give a shit about your opinion on science, when you admit you have no evidence and get entirely defensive on the mere suggestion that you have the burden of proof to support your claim?

I wonder if this experience will cause you to be less vitriolic and scientistic and actually listen to what people are actually saying rather than twisting it into what you need so you can battle it out. Hate that's become so comfortable, like old leather, that you can't do anything but hate, is an enemy of reason.

I don't hate you, you're not worthy of that emotion. But, is this all you have left? I suggest you turn this mirror of introspection around and take a good hard look at yourself and how you've conducted yourself so far.

 

[dandan]

ARONRA
List? What list were you looking for?

THIS LIST

No, as I already explained, the Osnabrück study did list the mutations with regard to the necessary changes in structure, but they were only discussing the assembly of the structure itself. They identified those mutations by the ubiquitous genes and the variations in the genome that were recorded, but they didn't identify the type of mutations involved, nor the mechanics of how each mutation prompted the specific changes described. That's why I added the 2nd citation from Upstate Medical, because their study does talk about the type of mutations and not so much about the incidental chemistry or the architecture. You should take both studies together for a more complete picture

 

[Miracles4Real]

You are positing creative little fairy people, while having no evidence that creative little fairy people exist. Thus, yes, it would be very senseless to posit them as the creators of anything without first demonstrating they actually exist. The only sensible thing to do would be to state that one does not know how they are created, if one does not know about ice crystal formation. It is dishonest to make up answers (which do not actually answer the question) to answer questions. Furthermore, you seemed to miss the point I was making, as if you only read half of that paragraph. You are positing that the universe is finely tuned; I reject that idea for the simpler explanation of emergence. Now feel free to prove me wrong and demonstrate that the universe is actually fine-tuned.

My analogy of "little fairy people" was tongue n cheek, though I think you understood my point because of how you seemed to agree with what I was thinking later on. Let me try and make the analogy a little less fanciful: Maybe if we had normal sized people making symmetrical sculptures that looked exactly like snow flakes and we knew how they made them and then later we saw a snowflake for the first time, the instant reaction would be to attribute it to some of these sculptors who were just very skilled with little tools (maybe a fringe would posit that they are tiny themselves)

The thing you are trying to express (god) is posited by you to explain fine-tuning. You do not have to change god to “fine tuner”; you need to demonstrate that fine-tuning actually exists. You are first claiming, with no justification, that the universe is finely tuned, than you go on from there to claim that the reason it is finely tuned is a god. You have not provided evidence for the former, let alone the latter assumption you are positing. Essentially, you are making up a problem and claiming that your made up answer accounts for your made up problem.

I admit I misunderstood you here. I did not answer because I thought you were merely pointing out where the specific scientific impasse we had, was. Because I didn't think science proved ether of our positions there (fine tuned/emergent) and so I really have no argument for you beyond the one you gave me for your feeling that it is emergent: "that seems simpler to me"
My understanding was that we cannot yet see beyond the Big Bang to discover if the universe is finely tuned or made up necessarily from a lattice like multiverse which would, due to the anthropic principle, create a universe just like ours without a choice in the matter. I didn't think that multiverse or M theory were much more than hypothetical at this point. Though I admit that, if true, they would erode my belief a good deal. In much the same way that Kepler's belief in God was shaken when he discovered that the orbits were not perfect concentric circles.

Also, thank you Darkprohet232 for already pointing out that Miracles4Real missed my point completely. Twice Miracles4Real has demonstrated poor reading comprehension in only one short response.

I'm really reading as carefully as I can and responding to as many as I can. I mean this. I'm trying to respond to everyone. I'm only human.
I'm upset that I can't get to everyone because many posts (even the really nasty ones) have been very thought provoking and even enlightening to me and they are things I still need to process and think about.

I responded to the ones that are the most pressing or just wrong assumptions about me that I really needed to correct before learning more.
It's been an uphill fight to get some to just believe that I'm not a young earth creationist like they really would like to beat up on.


The responses pile up faster than I can get to them.

I also misunderstood you here I saw your point as merely pointing out the impasse we have and moved on. My apologies, I hope you understand how communication can be difficult with this medium and on these kinds of (sometimes quite abstract) subjects even if someone has great reading comprehension. If I miss a point and you write me off as unable or unwilling to learn (As Darkprophet, defender of reason, has) you'd be wrong. I can prove it.
I've already learned so much about evolution. more than I've ever learned in my highschool biology class.

Now it is symmetry? I would agree there is symmetry, but fine-tuning, as you positing earlier is, in my opinion, much more than just symmetry. Furthermore, you no longer need to use the term god if symmetry is truly all a god explains, because emergence already accounts for the symmetry observed in the universe.

"Now" it is symmetry? that's always been a part of it. It's an order thing.
I'm sorry I don't seem to be eloquent enough to explain it. Please believe me when I say that I am not trying to scheme and move goalposts and change what I mean. I've tried several times to nail down exactly what it is but honestly it does come down to a feeling and a guess. Symmetry has always been a part of it, but the fact that there are laws and constants at all which give us this symmetry seems indicative of some kind of consciousness, for me.

I think God is a simpler answer than Emergence. though I think simplicity seems pretty subjective. I think there maybe something more substantive than simplicity but I can't put my finger on it. I realize I need to get off of this "mine is simpler than yours" kick- Ive learned that this doesn't really work (another thing I've learned from posters here)

God is, for me, the simplest explanation for the fact that that universe has laws and constants. I think this is where our impasse is.
Here is another analogy:
I think boulders rolling down mountains to form what we see as a symmetrical beautiful sculpture, seems less likely than a sculptor making it.
If we discover that there are boulders and they are falling down a series of inclines to create this sculpture, it still seems like someone arranged those inclines and ordered them to make this sculpture.
If it turns out that there are really billions of mountains on billions of rocks and I'm just looking at the one that happens to look the most perfect and beautiful-I would stop believing in a sculptor (at least a bolder arranging one)
Does that make sense?

Your deist view of a god is something this forum rarely ever sees (e.g., dandan and Onceforgivennowfree are both young earth creationists). I can respect your feelings, and just want to say that deism was my last step to atheism. The reason being is that a deistic god (one that started the universe/life and stepped aside to watch) is no different, in practice, from there not being a god in the first place.

I don't know how active God is in the current design. I must admit that this discussion on evolution has already made him less active and into more of a deist concept. So maybe you're right, maybe it's a final step on my way to atheism. But I won't change my mind just because you say you've been there done that.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

A beautiful quote. I will try and remember to not use God as a personal security blanket.

I have no idea who thinks of science that way.

I've talked to some posturing scientistic people who demand I never guess anything unless it comports to verifiable scientific knowledge. They are not scientests of corse. They just use it like rhetoric to stomp out any theistic wonderings. Such a view is unworkable.

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

Yeah.
I'm a layperson in the guessing stage.