The operative word is “appeared”. A mirage appears to have water. The appearance is deceptive. A snowflake appears to have been designed The appearance is deceptive.
Apparently, your “internal design detector” detector is working and reliable since you feel competent to declare all of “our” internal design detectors “not reliable.” Interesting that you assume such competency for yourself at the same time as denying it for all of “us.”
Ah yes, the old blind watchmaker ruse!But ‘designed’ by a mindless iterative process, not by an intelligent sentient entity.
My internal design detector is not reliable when **it appears **you are intelligently designing your sentences?
It helps if you know what the words mean. ‘Genetic code’ is clearly not iterative because it is not a process. Natural selection over successive generations clearly is iterative.
Again, once you understand the meaning of the words, clearly not. They are different things. However we know that iteration can be used as a very powerful design tool, because we use it as such.
The term “natural” or “processes” do not somehow magically distance a system from needing to be designed- they only indicate that conditions already exist -and time may be involved- in the formation of those systems; the form of any given snowflake, in fact, would be completely predictable if all variables necessary for its formation could be previously known and ascertained by us.
I agree. There is other, independent evidence, that such sentences are designed. Even if some of them are designed by computer programs, or some of them are designed to be nonsense: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”My internal design detector is not reliable when **it appears **you are intelligently designing your sentences?
O.K. I’ll go with that.
You are following the route that ID appears to be following. Having failed to make any impact on biology, ID has retreated to cosmology, “The universe was designed so that …” That leaves biology and evolution completely unchanged. Design is removed to a level similar to Theistic Evolution or Deism.
On the contrary, information science informs us that design is the best answer. I suggest:
Where is the independent confirming evidence that random events produced abiogenesis?
Or he did not design life individually, but just let it occur naturally, by a mindless iterative process.
Where is the “independent confirming evidence” that immaterial omnipotent entities are even possible, let alone that one produced abiogenesis? At least the processes used to postulate naturalistic abiogenesis can be shown to exist.
How often have you seen an omnipotent immaterial being create living matter ex nihilo?
There is the divide. The barrier that must never be questioned. It’s all one big accident, including man. A Get Away From God Card that opens up the world to no rules really.
Your sources are grossly misrepresenting chemistry. Chemistry is not random. No scientists attributes abiogenesis to “random events”. That is a strawman put out by misleading creationist sources.
I have never denied the existence of intelligent design. Humans do a great deal of intelligent designing. What I do argue is that we have never seen any example of intelligent design without any independent confirming evidence of the designer/s.
Not yet. We have seen lifeless matter and chemistry producing molecules found in living organisms. We have never seen any non-human designer producing any such molecules: amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, lipid bilayers and more. ID has absolutely nothing to show.
You don’t have to see “any non-human designer producing any such molecules: amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, lipid bilayers and more.” Just as you don’t have to see Multiverse producing trillions of universes to infer that such universes must exist or else you are stuck with Deity for an explanation (which by far is the simplest explanation if you are going with Occam’s Razor).
Since we are familiar with intelligent design in our own lives, ID is the only explanation that shows anything. Random iteration shows nothing.
This is patently false. The Miller-Urey experiment did not show random abiogenesis. Nor has any experiment since M-U showed random abiogenesis. And if any future experiment proved random abiogenesis, the experiment would have been intelligently designed to do so. Hence there is no way of getting around ID.