Well, I think we have a sorta Gish Gallop. It's pretty clear which side you agree with (cdesignpropenentist). Each question you have is a separate topic and the answers can be found not only here, but at other sites on the internet.
DNA is called the book of life. Can anyone make a book--that makes sense--by just throwing letters randomly?
Well, I suppose there is the slightest, however remote chance, that such an outcome can happen. However, that's certaintly not the process that the ToE describes. No matter what the creos say, because everytime they bring this up they fail to show any basic understanding of what the ToE actually describes.
Genetic codes and information are embedded in DNA. Is not intelligence required to decode and process information?
Are we talking Dumbski's information theory here? It's a junk information theory. If we want to play loose with information definitions, consider this. All life responds to stimuli (not necessarily all stimuli, but at least one). In this sense, all life decodes and processes information. Since life includes bacteria, and bacteria are by no means intelligent (in a classical sense), intelligence is certaintly not necessary to decode and process information.
The cell has a "complex copying" machine that replicates DNA's to RNAs. Which is more reasonable to believe that intelligence was needed to make that copying machine, or was it random chance that did it?
This would probably fall under abiogenesis, not the ToE. Further, abiogenesis certaintly does not posit "random chance" as the perpetrator. Also, the ToE does not posit "random chance" either. You're forgetting key parts of the theory and the hypotheses, thus misleading. As a side note--how can you determine whether intelligence was behind something? No one ID/creo has been able to suggest how we can succesfully determine an intelligent agent that is distinguishable from known natural causes. Overall, a bad question.
The actual process from DNA to protein to life is a million times more complicated than this flowchart. As this flow chart required intelligence (though limited) to make, so should the more complex process require intelligence. Agree / Disagree? Please give reason.
The flow chart did not require intelligence. It required knowledge. Knowledge does not equal intelligence. Complexity does not equal intelligence. Tell me, where is the intelligence in a mandelbrot set? Nature is perfectly capable of creating something more complex without any discernible intelligent agent. Which brings up the question again--how do you determine a distinguishable intelligent agent?
What did Miller's failed experiment in 1953 prove?
a) that it requires blind chance to produce "left handed" amino acids--the building block of life? Or, did it prove that the chance of life coming to existence by mere chance is mathematically impossible?
This is the question that at last gives you away. Miller's experiment was by no means a failure. It did precisely what it attempted--the creation of amino acids in a possible early-atmosphere environment. It did not attempt, nor prove* what you are claiming in "a" and "b". When you've read up on the Miller-Urey experiment, and the research and hypotheses that have been formulated since, come back to us with a better-formulated, and more accurate, question. The other two questions contained within are pointless after realizing you got Miller-Urey wrong.
Darwinian evolution--as taught in school--says that all living things came to existence because of unguided natural processes. On the other hand, intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not by undirected processes such as natural selection. Considering the above flowchart--which hopefully simplified the picture--which is more reasonable to believe?
More nonsense, I'm afraid. I was certaintly not taught that the ToE says that all living things came into existence by unguided natural processes. What precisely is an "unguided natural process" here? Further, ID/creo is a complete failure when it comes to explaining the world. Again, you have to come up with a way to determine how to succesfully distinguish an intelligent agent as the cause behind what we see--ID/creo, for all its talk, hasn't done this (or rather, all rather silly attempts have failed). ID/creo works by suggesting, "hey, you see this tiny problem here? ID can explain it, ToE can't", but ID cannot explain 99% of what we see. Further, every "problem" ID/creo has come up with is actually explainable by the ToE.
Yeah, I'm thinking Gish Gallop. And every answer I've given will either be ignored or "nu-uh!"ed. Nothing more than what the ID/creo crowd is really capable of.
™ Version 4.2
