How does Complexity demonstrate Design

Until you're able to express these "proofs" coherently, they don't really prove anything.I'm sorry but your posts are simply incomprehensible. If you want to argue with us you need to do a much better job of expressing yourself. Until then we literally don't have much of an idea of what you're saying.

The sense of which, however, no one can suss out but you. So what have you accomplished? Even if you have the truth and we don't, what does it serve for you to conceal it in nonsense?

In what way? Pasteur's experiment proved that fully-formed bacteria don't arise spontaneously from a specific sterile broth over a geologically short time period.In what way does that specific finding apply to abiogenesis? That's like saying "I can't flap my arms and fly, therefore there's no way to get from New York to London in under 8 hours." In other words you're generalizing too far from one specific experiment. But nobody has claimed that bacteria are the simplest possible form of life, or that they're the first common ancestor. Nobody here claims that bacteria were the first product of abiogenesis.

Well, the word is "demagoguery", for starters, and that's not an argument that refutes my point, that's just calling me names. Moreover you're calling me the wrong name:

quote:

---

Demagogue:
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times

---

Since I'm not 1, and certainly can't be 2, you've called me a bizzarely inaccurate name. No, you were. You supplied Pasteur's experiment as an example against abiogenesis. Right, which was improper. Since Pasteur's experiment supports no conclusions about DNA, "accidents", or "information", it's not proper to employ it to support any of your conclusions.Maybe you don't know how an argument works, but it's where you support your conclusions with non-fallacious reasoning. Your premises fail to support your conclusions, so all you've offered is nearly incomprehensible rhetoric.

A scientific experiment is never proof. Scientific conclusions are always tentative.So no, it's not proof. Which is more name-calling, not an argument.

No, it's a tentative conclusion supported by a weight of evidence.Just because scientific conclusions are tenative and not definative doesn't mean they're all assumptions.In fact, proof is the assumption - you can only have a proof by means of constructing a tautology from assumed axioms. The very reason that there is no proof in science stems from the scientific goal of making the least amount of assumptions.

I'm "proving" nothing. I'm simply saying that the scientific consensus is correct - evolution is the most accurate model of the history of life on Earth.You, on the other hand, are putting words in my mouth that I never said. You know I didn't say that, Y. You've done what I told you not to do - conflated tentativity with ignorance.Just because we don't know everything with 100%, eternal certainty, doesn't mean that everything we know is a belief. Science is tenative. It's not just making things up, like you do.It's clear that you're unable to comprehend how science works. Maybe you shouldn't be involved in cientific discussions, then?