Due to the fact that new space shuttles are being built every day. But no one has yet to be able to figure out how life could have come from non-life.
Keyword:
YET.
Just because we haven't
yet figured something out doesn't mean it is necesarilly the result of supernatural or guided agencies. Nor does it mean it is necesarilly a more complex process than building a space shuttle - just a more elusive one. Designing something based on what we already understand about the physical laws of this Universe is always going to be easier than piecing together an event (or numerous events) that took place over a billion years ago. That's just basic logic.
Scientist don't know how to even form a living cell from nonliving material, and this is with intelligent design. So to believe that this could happen naturally without an intelligent design is to say that an unguided, blind, and mindless process could do something millions of years ago that intelligent minds today cannot do, like build a space shuttle.
And what happens when they do figure it out? Would you take that as proof that you are wrong?
The process of even making a living cell is so complicated that to suggest that this happened by random chance is to take a huge leap of faith.
Hold on, you just said we don't know how to make a single living cell, so how can you make any assertions whatsoever about how "complicated" the process of making a cell is?
Can you intelligently produce a living cell?
Can you build a space shuttle?
It isnt about what we can do to a genetic code, it is how can a blind, unguided, and mindless process be able to produce a living cell. But yet, space shuttles are being made every single day.
I love how you keep saying that, as if it means anything.
If we can build a space shuttle, but we cant produce a living cell and therefore explain how life could come from nonlife, obviously, our DNA code is more complex.
Completely nonsensical. Just because we currently can do something and can't do something else doesn't mean it's more complex - it just means it's harder to figure out. The fact we discovered fire before we discovered the wheel does not make a wheel "more complicated" than a fire.
Not really. When I speak of complexity, that is to say, these complicated things have purpose. I mean, a 2 yr old scribbling on a piece of paper can be said to be a design. But there is nothing complicated about it. There is something complicated about assembling a living cell from protein molecules, something that the world's greatest minds cant seem to do. Our DNA code is a blueprint, containing information on how to make you.....you.
And how do you demonstrate that this requires inherent design? Note that I will not accept "well, since it's complex" or "blueprints need design".
So, once again, if you were alive 3,000 years ago, and you were walking in a field at night, and you see an unidentified object in the field, which red and blue lights glowing. You curiously walk your way towards it and find an entrance, and you walk in, and you see all of this high tech machinery and technology, and screens with what look like graffiti on them. Would you think that these objects were designed?
I probably wouldn't have the foggiest clue. But how is that relevant? We're not living 3,000 years ago. We're living in the 21st century, when our understanding of natural and unnatural phenomena is far more comprehensive. Why would what somebody thinks 3,000 years ago be the least bit relevant?
Or would you brush it off as a nature mishap?? Would you need evidence in order to be convinced that what you see is designed?? I really would like an answer to this question. I think the answer is obviously NO. And if the answer is no, then i dont see how you can even begin to make the statement of "you have no evidence that complexity specifically requires design".
This is another red herring. Whether or not we can identify one thing as being designed does not mean another must also be identified as having been designed. Comparing organic, biological life forms to space ships is completely eroneous and inane.
Because of genetic code is wayyy more complicated than anything man has ever built. The more complex something is, the more evidence there is of design.
You've completely ignored my arguments.
1) How do you quantify how one thing is more objectively "complex" than another thing. And no, "we haven't figured it out yet" is not a suitable (or even relevant) answer.
2) What evidence do you have that complexity specifically requires design? Once again, a snowflake is more complex than a brick, so does this mean that a snowflake is more likely to be designed by a brick?
Complexity always have design when there is a purpose to it.
Prove it.
There is no purpose of looking at a snowflake through a microscope and seeing a design pattern.
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the pattern of a snowflake is not complex, or that it is irrelevant? Only a fool would look at the crystalline formation of a snowflake and say it is less complicated than a brick.
But we can see purpose when we look at our DNA structure and see information on the identity of a person.
Garbage. How do you quantify "purpose" as in inherent quality of DNA?
When you look at a rock, there is no purpose. There is nothing gained from the design patterns of a rock. When you look at the human body and see that it has eyes to see, ears to hear, a digestive system to break down food and give the body energy, immune system to fight diseases...this is purpose.
If you say so, but what does purpose have to do with complexity.
I feel as though people dont like the idea of a God telling them what to do. They dont want to give up there life of lusts, whether it is lust for sex, money, or power.
If that's what you honestly think, then you're incredibly arrogant and close-minded. Do you think I live a life of lust, sex, money and power? I'm willing to bet I live just as good (if not better) a life than you. In fact, I'm willing to put money on it.
Yes evolution gave me eyes to see. It knew that I was going to eventually need to see. Evolution knew that I was going to need a reproductive system to mate with a female, to produce offspring. It new I was going to need a brain to think, blood to flow through my body....a heart to pump the blood....but im sure you are going to tell me that evolution didn't "know" anything....but yet...I have all of these things????
So? Do you still not understand how evolution works? The idea that everything has to happen for a pre-planned "reason" is utterly naive and childish.
So I was priviledged enough to obtain all of these wonderful things from a process that didnt know i was going to need any of it?? But, to each her/her own.
Priveleged? No. Why would you consider it a privalege to be born with those things rather than, say, a fully functioning body? I have several friends and cousins who were disabled from birth. I know many people who need corrective glasses or even surgery in order to enable them to see properly. I know people born with severe breathing issues. Is it a "privelage" for them to be born with these traits? Just because you lack the perceptive ability to understand how these things came about through evolution, does not make it untrue. It just makes you seriously lacking in understanding.
Of course it does. If you dont see the faith in that, I dont know what to tell you.
Says you, and yet you seem incapable of pointing exactly what I am relying on "on faith".
