A formal statement of Intelligent Deisgn

Well, come on, you do talk crap a lot of the time. Much of the time it isn't decipherable and yet you seem to believe that you've made yourself as clear as mud. But you also seem to believe that I'm saying that natural selection has to be directed. You don't seem capable of understanding a comment about the hypothetical effects of an hypothetical, teleological direction mysteriously provided to mutation. Talking to you is about the same as talking to Mr @stephen-33, in fact.

I don't get the sense that talking to you can ever be productive whilst you try to show off to others or whatever it is you think you're doing. For an intelligent person, I'm afraid you come over as amazingly thick.

Thank you for your time, but I see no reason to continue to engage with you.

Good. You ought to have left it when we were getting along. I was suspicious when you spoke about "pissing each other off" and then became argumentative again. I'd given you the opportunity and basis to be friendly. If you judge "engaging with people" against the efforts by some others here, it's hardly any wonder you don't know how to do it.

I arrived at the position where after accepting you for whatever you may be, I then decided that you are probably not what you pretend to be. Even if you were autistic or something, I think that someone who can analyse computer systems at a high level, as you claim to do for a living, wouldn't be so deficient in communicative ability. You come over like a 15 year old pretending to be something he's not.

I am not going anywhere but I’m done with you.

Good show.

You know, in all your posts you basically said nothing. No support for anything you tried to say and most of your posts weren't written in intelligible English, yet you seemed to think or pretend that you'd won great points. Why don't you learn to discuss ideas instead of sitting on a club with five members like a giant crab? What's the point? What do you gain out of making yourself look like a fool?

I'm warning you, lay off the personal stuff.

In that case, so long as you do too, we're alright. Passive-aggressive comments are worse than more direct ones. You never had any intention of participating in a proper discussion.

Natural selection does it have creative potential, if you think so how?

Some of my thoughts on Natural Selection, Natural Selection is a truism it isn't a theory that was discovered, when resources are thin the stronger and faster will get them, but as resources increase even the weaker ones can acquire them so it becomes simply a matter of opportunity. In all of that, there is nothing that directs a mutation to build upon an earlier one so that after time a new function or form arises.

There is a genetic code that writes out what is going to be formed, and due to the design of what functions take place, this is a matter of information placed in life, that does not arise out of chaos and chance but with forethought and design. People even acknowledge as they see it, but call it an illusion, and I submit to you the illusion is in the denial not what we see.

If you're going to propose that all living things were designed then you have a duty to explain things like this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve#:~:text=The%20extreme%20detour%20of%20the,as%20opposed%20to%20intelligent%20design.

"The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes,[32]: 74–75  is cited as evidence of evolution, as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed"

Can that be explained in terms of design? It's similar to the designer of a family car deciding to route the cabling between the switch on the dashboard and the headlights all the way around the rear seats. Utterly inefficient.

What human designer would ever do that?

Concerning fossils, we see creatures show up and disappear in what we can see in the fossil record over time, and the search goes on the transitional life from one creature turning into another, and many "just so stories" show up when someone thinks they found one.

A question I have concerning fossils isn't about transitional ones, it is why we see the sudden appearances of static life in the fossil record at all. People are always looking for the transitional ones that have life moving from one to the next, but why the static lifeforms in the first place? If evolution is small changes over time why would there ever be a static lifeform that hangs around for millions of years?

If true then all life would always be in a state of change continually; therefore, the question shouldn't be limited to missing fossils in transition, nor should the question be only about millions of years ago either. Today, why don't we see a string of similar lifeforms in different forms, instead of the static unique forms we see today and in the past? Doesn't matter how you date things if the premise itself isn't evident.

If it works why are you concerned about the design of it, simply because we don't think there is a good reason does not at all mean there isn't one.

"If it works why are you concerned about the design of it, simply because we don't think there is a good reason does not at all mean there isn't one."

Can you suggest a single reason? In what way would arranging the routing of that nerve in a more direct and efficient way be disadvantageous?

If designed that way, it makes no sense.

Never studied it and like many higher level engineering feats they could seem counter intuitive to the untrained mind.

Not sure anyone needs to be trained to spot something that's manifestly less safe and efficient than an alternative but can you illustrate what you mean here with an example? ....

"like many higher level engineering feats they could seem counter intuitive to the untrained mind"

Abiogenesis will have occured via natural selection. Life-forms are self-perpetuation systems and it's logical that there would have been situations where the chemicals necessary for life would have been formed. It's natural to imagine reactions which themselves are not only self-perpetuating but give the probability of creative change. Carbon-based life-forms are based on a type of chemistry which is exceptionally complex because carbon has a valency of four. Silicon also has a similar valency and silicon is one of the fundamental elements in rocks. The Earth contains a lot of rock. It also contains carbon in a non-free form, necessitating reduction to remove it from its most stable compounds such as oxides.

I can envisage a situation where the Earth was a chemistry lab, with reactions taking place over hundreds of thousands of years. Nature is a pattern-maker, because all particles, if left to their own devices, form patterns and sort themselves into types. The marks on sand under rippling water. The formation of complex chemicals.

Natural selection selects that which is already there, it has no creative powers or abilities, suggesting it can take unconnected chemicals and combine them into life is not possible. At the point that there is no life then life it would require specialized work forming all of the necessary things that make up the chemical properties of life, the forming of proteins, and such, and that is just the chemical part of it, what takes chemicals and turns them into something living we can not even define, what do we lose when a living cell dies?

I owe you more in this answer, I'll give you some examples. In the meantime if you don't know what to do how can you build anything complex with systems within systems relying on very precise precision exactly why do you think something unguided, caring, blind, is a better choice than an all-knowing mind?

You seem to be avoiding saying that you have absolutely no idea why any creator would 'design' a creature (the Giraffe) in that way. I'm not a Biologist so I'd have to do an immense amount of reading to answer questions on the fine detail of cell-biology.

Might be quicker if you did that from some of the excellent sites (Harvard has a fine one) available online?

I think His engineering abilities are far above my skill levels, do you find fault in a working system because it isn't set up the way you think it should have been done? In your reading about cell biology, you grasp all of the inner workings of the cell, and how information directs specific tasks.