Sophisticated Machines

No.

Gee what a thoroughly thought out reply.

Creationists made several of these arguments in the Kitzmiller v. Dover (2004) case and failed. The court ultimately ruled that intelligent design theory isn’t science.

LOL. dodge, deflect, & run. Highly sophisticated machines require forethought, is a creationist view?? LOL

You literally tagged creationism in your post

Sure did. Are you actually going to deal with the fact highly sophisticated machinery requires forethought or just complain about creation?

Why do these things require a designer and why do you think they aren't the product of natural selection and genetic modification?

Because a designer behind the sophisticated & complex is all that we have ever seen. Why admit this for words on a beach or stones carved into shapes but not in genetic? Why believe we came from rocks?

All of these things are explained by natural processes that you’re too ignorant to understand or too lazy to learn.

Be honest you're looking for evidence as hard as a thief looks for a cop. I agree design is obvious when one sees it but you are choosing to reject it but know it true. this sophisticated and complex thing isn't design it only appears that way because the implications of the fact of design are something many do not want to accept, see, or think about. You didn't come from a rock you came from a mind.

Who the f**k said I came from a rock? You obviously don’t even understand the science and that’s why you point to intelligent design.

Is it to hard for you to understand sophisticated and complex machines only come from a mind? You see the sophisticated complexity of Mount Rushmore but would laugh at anyone who would suggest it was carved through natural processes. Seeing the vast quantities of complex specific information in even the simplest self-reproducing organism tells us a mind was involved. Software doesn't create itself.

There’s a stark difference between things obviously being the product of human meddling, and the inference that something supernatural and transient produced something instead. There is evidence of humans and zero of the supernatural.
DNA tells us abiogenesis was involved. And while complex, if the human genome were converted to binary code, Windows XP would still be twice as large.

Your evolutionary beliefs says that rocks got rained on & minerals formed the first life. Rocks are fundamental to your beliefs but You will call it lies & think scientist wouldn't say something so stupid but you will choose to believe this nonsense if it means rejecting the obvious, sophisticated and complex machines only come from a mind.

Just google: Genesis Rocks Minerals & The Geochemical Origin Of Life https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/sites/hazen.gl.ciw.edu/files/ElementsIntro.pdf

This says you owe your life to a rock
https://www.science.org/content/article/you-owe-your-life-rock

This says rocks beget life
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/life-and-rocks-may-have-co-evolved-on-earth-180957807/#:~:text=Then%20as%20planets%20like%20Earth,minerals%E2%80%94until%20you%20have%20life.

Except not really.

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d0a990fbf9f42821f1372828113c8a72-lq
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-eb54e7091ff4453aee91d744da27a995-pjlq

To believe bacteria, water molecules, & Lighting is not complex is to be willfully ignorant.

Water is H2O molecules. Lightning is electrostatic discharges between the ground and the clouds. Basic building blocks are formed through chemical mixtures.

The real willful ignorance is saying "Goddidit" instead of "I don't know".

LOL these "basic chemical mixtures" are highly complex. Asking I don't know how God did it is what led men of faith who started the scientific revolution to try & learn about the world around them.

Let's look at the basic chemical mixtures then.

- C₆H₁₂O₆
- 3(RCOOH) and C₃H₈O₃
- NH₂CH₂COOH
- C₁₀H₁₀O₄N₇P₂
- C₁₀H₁₂O₅N₅P

It's absolutely true that those molecules are complex. However, multiple experiments have shown them being formed randomly, like the sources shown above.

I have some fun challenges for you;
1. Which god created life? Why? When? What creation story is true? Where did humans come from and who were the first people?
2. Where did dogs come from?
3. Where did different finches on Galapagos come from? If creationism is true, did god create the finches to fit their environments or the environments to fit the finches? Where is the evidence to support this?
4. Multiple species exist only on small islands and nowhere else. Assuming you believe in Noah's flood, how does that explain this?
5. Why do humans share multiple characteristics with apes, including opposable thumbs, and even have the oldest fossils of their kind in the same continent, Africa?
6. Wind was once thought to be irreducably complex, until it was found out that it was just air moving from high pressure areas to low pressure ones. Auroras were, too, but it was found out to just be earth's magnetic field, formed because the core is made of iron, fighting solar winds.

Thank you for agreeing they are complex a true statement.

That's for you to decide but it is obvious a eternal ever existing source was needed or you believe in magic & it all just poofed into existence. I call that source Jesus. You think dogs came from a rock that came from nothing & over time something changed into a dog even though such observations have never been observed. This is true for any bird or location you find any animal. Pandas Koalas & chameleons also have opposable thumbs. We also share seeing, smelling, hearing, walking, climbing, eating, etc all these & any similarities just point to a common designer. The wind and Aurora are caused by very complex things, you keep wanting to downplay the complexity of life to the very simplest of life to fit in a story of evolution. sorry but your view starts with life being overwhelmingly complex from the very beginning and highly sophisticated and complex structures can only come from a mind.

1. you look at a building, proved to me that it was made without using intelligent impute as your answer.
2. do you consider a building to be less complex or more complex than a protein?
3.if NASA received a message from deep space less complex than JavaScript what would you conclude & why?
4. Why do you believe you came from a rock?

I don't think anything came from a rock. Dogs came from wolves, which have a series of ancestors all the way back to the first canine, back to the first mammal, back to furred reptilians called cynodonts and their ancestors all the way back to the first reptile, first amphibian, first fish, first eukaryote, all the way back to the first single celled (over 3.8 billion years), which came from the molecular bonding of the basic building blocks (carbs, lipids, amino acids, etc), which formed when electricity bound certain elements together in water, which came from comets, formed over time by leftovers from the formation of stars. These are made of elements other than hydrogen, which all formed because stars fused hydrogen together (that is why stars work). Hydrogen first formed when some energy became matter, which then became quarks. Up and Down quarks binded together and formed protons and neutrons. These binded and formed hydrogen. Eventually, the force of attraction between particles (gravity) condensed gas into the first stars, then they started fusing. All energy came from the Big Bang, which was an expansion of the universe making physics possible. This happened, according to physicists, because heat energy naturally spreads to spaces where there is less of it (this is entropy). As to why this happens, we don't have an answer yet, but we'll figure it out some day.

1. We know how buildings are made. But we also know how plate tectonics, physics, biology, paleontology, geology, taxonomy, radiology, chemistry, zoology, cytology and biochemistry all work, which in turn lead to us understanding how "complex things" like auroras, magnetism and solar winds really work. However, to believe in the Watchmaker Theory, you don't have to understand anything about anything concerning how the natural world works besides what the citizens of Catalhoyuk knew, which is, nothing besides that there are forces that control things and some people get sick.
2. More complex. Does one molecule RCH(NH2)COOH look nearly as complex as insanely more ionic and molecular compounds bonding in certain shapes that are cut, shaped, placed in certain places where they can best counteract the forces of gravity and remain stable as one building?
3. NASA recieves signals of multiple wavelengths, not messages. Messages are just people mistaking random sounds of words for things, just like how we mistake some Mesa formations for pyramid ruins.
4. I don't. I just explained why.

What you just told me was a story that you just believe in by faith. You said you didn't think anything came from a rock then say you came from a comet. There is no reason to call your beliefs in others imaginations of unobserved events & evolutionary changes over unobserved vast amounts of time, scientific. Notice you end the story with an argument from ignorance & silence.

You were unable to prove it was made without using intelligent impute as your answer because you know on site when you see something that was designed but have choose to ignore it in specific areas. Also you completely ignored the NASA question. Interesting you called the building more complex after the story you just told me above. This is willful ignorance and you are just ignoring and under playing the vast complexity of existence by pretending it comes together more easy then a building does. You go on to praise ignorance by saying you don't have to understand anything about anything concerning how the natural world works which means you do not have to understand anything you're telling me other than you just have to accept it because another option just isn't acceptable to you.

No, I can prove. Literally just read any science textbook, scientific data. I did not ignore the NASA question. And I didn't argue from ignorance, but just said I didn't know, but that we will one day know as science changes. And I told you how a single wood beam is more complex than a protein, and therefore an entire F**KING BUILDING. I didn't say I came from a comet, but that water came onto earth from comets and meteors during the Late Heavy Bombardment. I didn't say I didn't have to know anything, I said that you do not have to to anything at all TO BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM. Because it depends on ignorance, it's not honest research.

You are just beating around the bush. Answer MY questions, goddammit. You know what they are, but you just lie and lie and lie. You are the most dishonest person I have ever met, saying things that are blatantly false right in front of my face, insulting my intelligence.

This is why I refrain from calling it the Evolution-Intelligent Design debate. It's not a debate, it's just scientists trying to talk sense into a conman who doesn't care about science and is only there because natural selection isn't compatible with how they want to interpret bronze age fairy stories, who beats around the bush, like you are doing.

People do that & come to a different conclusion based on the same data who's correct not the people I look to says everyone. As science changes & you climb to the top that is the mountain of scientific truth you'll find a creationist waiting for you. Yes you did say you came from a comet. You are literally using them as a reason for the existence of life on earth which by default means you believe you came from a rock. Honest research isn't believing in a story of unobserved changes imagined to have happened. You need to call me a liar as an excuse to not deal with what I have said. It can't be a different perspective or a incorrect opinion. No I have to be lying, you need a excuse to feel morally superior by believing what you think are the correct things. Not very scientific of you to decide what is true first & then force everything to fit into the story you prefer most & ignore anything else that dares to disagree. Picking & chosening who is a scientist based on their beliefs is silly. LOL evolution is the fairy tale. Kiss the frog it turns into a prince but give the frog a billion years now it's science.

Holy shit. I was expecting a debate. All I got was a pretentious conman beating around the bush, making the same straw men over and over and over again while saying he's right, all while providing no evidence for his claims. I tried to give you evidence, but you just ignored it. You never answered my questions. You never refuted my evidence. You never presented yourself in a logical way, and all you ever did was shit on the board, knock over the pieces and declare yourself the winner. But I don't blame you. After all, you are trying to defend mythology from the bronze age against science, which is observable despite what you want to pretend.

It's amazing how hypocritical and dishonest you are. You make fun of me for believing that life came from a rock, which was not the case as I explained why, while you believe the first human was literally a clay statue that God breathed into. You say I believe life came from a comet, when I only said that that was a possible source of water on earth. You don't tell us how the world was created, you don't tell us who the first people were, you don't explain your worldview at all, just make false assumptions about mine. I swear to God if you don't make an actual argument in your next reply, I'm f**king done.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428117/#:~:text=Evolution%20is%20widely%20observable%20in,succession%20on%20the%20fossil%20record.)

For some reason I didn't see the reply button to your last response, Weird. There is no observation for the story you told me or for the imagined changes you believe in. The difference is you believe you came from a rock without intelligence while I believe intelligence was required to form man. I believe intelligent people can dig minerals out the ground & build a software storage device but you think such a thing doesn't require intelligence which is a fairy tale. You have been given several replies. it is not my problem you couldn't deal with or respond to them with anything but the story you believe in by faith. You have no observation for that story so it is not science it is your religion.

A story of unobserved imagined evolutionary changes you believe happened isn't science. The evidence you have is the belief it happened. Faith isn't without evidence it's based on it as you are displaying with the belief that the story you have shared is true because we observe this & that combined with how you have been told to think & your personal bias to ignore & dismiss what you don't agree with as seen in your rant about Hovind. Aron Ra literally prays to satan so perhaps quote one not so religious. Science is not determined by who you like to listen to or agree with.

A day is based on the rotation of the earth not daylight.

Existence popping out of nowhere doesn't make sense that is magic. sophisticated and complex things only come from a mind and existence is sophisticated and complex from the moment it begins. A ever existing intelligence source is required.

There is enough water already on the earth to flood it.

The meme is how I think you examine anything that would disagree with your views.

That's f**king it. I gave you sources, and you just repeat the same things without any evidence whatsoever. You know what? I'm done. Your bullshit is clearly not supported by any evidence whatsoever. You have no sources, no evidence, no nothing. You just use the same arguments over and over and over and over again. You answer 0 of my questions, and rant about how you're right on and on. You repeat the same strawmans, where I clearly debunk them. You say I can't observe evolution AFTER I LINKED YOU TO A SOURCE OF PEOPLE OBSERVING EVOLUTION. WELL, HAVE YOU SEEN AN ANIMAL BE FORMED OUT OF CLAY AND TURNED INTO A LIVING ANIMAL?

That's it, I'm done wasting my time on you. Here's some parting gifts, since you can't give them to me.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

You gave me your beliefs & a story not science & no I can't observe the original creation just like you can't observe evolution. We both accept our views by faith. You are just in denial of that fact. You don't care about evidence.

I do not accept the views by faith. The "story" I provided was just a summary of my scientific knowledge concerning the origins of the world at this moment, and is backed up by evidence. I provided you multiple sources which you refuse to read. Faith is believing in things which are not evidently true, trying to defend itself against all opposing evidence because it's "sacred truth". That's why faith "is the most dishonest position it is possible to have" (Aron Ra).

And no, Kent Hovind doesn't have the same education as Richard Dawkins. Kent Hovind "graduated" from an infamous diploma mill known as Patriots University, and got a diploma and masters' in "Christian Education". Richard has went to Oxford university, Getting a doctorate in philosophy and an MA, as well as being one of the most respected in his fields of zoology and biology. His theories such as memes (not those images on the internet) and knowledge of the subject has led to him winning five awards, among them the ZSL silver medal and FRS. He has been tutored under the guidance of Nobel-Prize winning biologist and ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. (You can google this up within a minute).

The fact that Hovind is one of the main leaders of the Creationist movement and Dawkins is a relatively minor figure in evolutionary science tells me a lot.

P.S Answer the six questions I asked back there. Explain how days and nights existed before the sun. Explain how things popping up out of nowhere because God said so makes any more sense than living cells forming, reproducing and diversifying to combat environmental challenges. Explain how you believe the universe came into existence, if you believe the earth is 6000 years old (definitely not true) or not, if you believe in a worldwide flood or not, and provide sources.