A formal statement of Intelligent Deisgn

If it is working, if the creature is healthy what is your complaint? I don't care what you are looking at you can always say it could be better.

Hmmm, for those who stubbornly cling to the idea that their religion must be literally true in every sense, it can start to act like a distorting lens in which nothing is seen clearly!

A selection is a choice, and a filter only takes what can pass through it, no one can explain how a chemical process that has clear paths that are life-friendly and not life-friendly is made so that the life-friendly paths are always chosen and can built upon themselves to create something novel from scratch. If there is no preference because of the mindless nature of this process the most dominant will always occur, and if on the slight off chance, a life-friendly path is taken, it will never last, because the next time when another is required and an non-life-friendly chemical reaction occurs it voids the first one.

Life has to start, there is nothing anywhere that can give a natural possible cause and account for all of the information properties in life. Granting life without that discussion we have information properties that direct reactions keeping life alive and maintaining its form and functions. Evolution can account for life's strongest and fastest getting to the resources needed for life when the resources are scarce, but nothing about that directs any cellular mutations to build something new in forms or features. Programming requires a programmer, it isn't a stretch to see good coding doing very precise precision work which is functionally complex in systems embedded in the systems.

I agree, Life itself, not an invented concept of perfection.

You misunderstand me, I don’t believe the material world came together to create life, it was life that created the material world. Life didn’t start because of chemical combinations coming together through chance and necessity.

Do what you got to do I was trying to make sure we were clear, I was not sure so I tried to clarify. If that seems like a slight to you I can not help you.

Do you think saying things like, "Being a religious person, you try to emphasise the superiority of your thoughts." is condescending, or at a minimum can be taken as such?

Current evidence suggests the vast majority of mutations are neither positive nor negative but neutral or nearly so in terms of fitness.

Nice seeing you back. I have booted Optimised for insulting people after a few warnings. Sorry if you wanted to continue discussing things with him.

I think that's meant for (the now absent) @Optimissed?

But there's no question that religious belief skews the outlook and reasoning of some people. It is no longer defensible to claim the Earth is only some 20,000 years old because it appears to claim this in scripture. The evidence we have that points to a very ancient planet is solid and irrefutable.

But I think it's worth asking if there's such a thing as a non-religious reputable Biologist who has concluded that a purely natural cause for life is so improbable as to be ruled out as an option?

Everyone has an opinion that skews their views on everything, we (all of us) find it difficult to let go of our long held beliefs no matter what we are shown.

I don’t consider length of time a factor as much as timing. I used to argue a young earth until I was convinced we don’t know even if we all agreed with scripture, it doesn’t make a case for it.

"Everyone has an opinion that skews their views on everything" - no they don't!

I have no preconceived opinion of how old the Earth might be and provided estimates are supported by evidence, I'm quite ready to accept what scientists conclude.

If you accept or reject God, then some ramifications play out due to your beliefs even rejecting God means somethings are one way and not another, it's unavoidable.

If I cannot in good faith believe that there's an alien base on the dark side of the Moon because I don't find the 'evidence' remotely convincing, my absence of belief is not in itself 'a belief'.

My absence of belief in this thing you label 'god' should be viewed in the same way. Only those who view a proposition as if it's a matter of fact treat a contrary opinion as somehow being a belief but it really isn't.

N.B. - finding insufficient reason to believe something as fact is not the same as denying it is a fact. A subtle but important difference.

True, is anyone presenting reason to think that there is an alien base on the back side of the moon? Your starting point colors everything else, I don’t recall the speakers name I am sure you remember him that said people depending on our origin are made in God’s image or products evolved from pond scum. One makes people with a divine origin that other we come from things we would scape off our shoes.