" It is a very interesting article yet the conclusion that a supernatural being created itself from nothing with the ability to do all these wondrous tasks isn't supported by evidence.
Basically you are saying the task is immensely complex , therefore god.
You have to keep in mind that the divinely inspired torah , bible and quran were written by people that didn't understand where the sun went at night . Hardly the level of scientific competence you would expect from a divine creator."
What does what men know in any era have to do with what's known biochemically today? Your thought isn't making a particular point. You're projecting your ancient ignorance argument as means to bridge scripture to scientific knowledge today. You fail to take into account what's appropriate to form an argument. They didn't have sewing machines yet they had garments, etc. Your criticism is applicable to all people at all times. Your ancestors didn't know about WiFi. What criticism can be leveled against them for that? You're mixing apples with oranges, failing to take into account what's appropriate to expect of people who lived several thousand years ago.
On God being self existent, how would a temporal being construct means to apprehend the elements involved with a being self existent when you have no plausible explanation for the complexity of systems vested in microscopic mechanisms? You have no answers or any sources to give a natural explanation, much less a suggestion how systems are in place that work the complexity of problems in DNA, doing repairs, making proper arrangements, etc by mere happenstance alone. You can't affirm the absurd, trying to lean on people who lived several thousand years ago to make a case today. Talk about digging at the bottom of the barrel for an argument you take the cake. Is atheism that desperate.
Douglas Graham Kent C Stellrecht,
" Your op was a solid paste Angelo. Right up until you added god did it.
That is where you failed. You have no proof for your god.
Even the pope disregards intelligent design. It's not really a defensible position . Just like creationism isn't either."
What you see in the management, reaction and facilitation of cell function is information processing and outcomes. You can argue natural selection worked respective issues in organizing respective micro orgasmic functions simultaneously with creating the respective elements if you'd like. The problem with that is that chemical evolution's problem of evolving chemical reactions to facilitate the formation and actions have no proof, not can chemical evolution work, as an idea or a fact.
I figure you're so hard working God can't be proven because you don't have a shred of know how to attribute to chemistry what everybody knows it doesn't do. So, since you don't have a leg to stand on you try to slap God with the same condition, insisting you can't prove his existence. That's not necessary because, first you have to explain the information that guidelines cell function. The complexity of it is way above our capacity to calculate in probability. Nevertheless, you must have your mantra with the information smacking you in the face.
Seth Garren Biology resembles objects created by intelligent agents (humans) in a number of remarkable ways but it also differs from man made objects. Biological processes are dynamic while man made objects are static. Biological processes reproduce entirely on their own while man made objects must be assembled new each time. Biological processes rely on micro and nanoscale physics while only the most advanced man made objects operate on that level. We can claim that such differences are purely the result of biology being essentially a machine that is more advanced than any machine man has yet to make but this does not rule out a bottom up cause and is essentially a hypothesis-preserving ad hoc explanation. Most man made objects have a clear purpose in their creation to do a particular task. Biological processes do not appear to accomplish any purpose outside of their own continued existence. There is also no apparent reason to make a number of biological processes that resemble each other to varying degrees such that they give the false appearance of common ancestry.