How does Complexity demonstrate Design

MrH:
Nature creates trees and babies and (especially) bacteria all the time, through the impressive but undirected process of DNA copying and cell division.John Paul:
WRONG! Trees create trees, bacteria create bacteria and babies come from LIVING organisms.MrH:
I resent being called dishonest because I expect you to offer the same evidence you demand (and then deny) from evolutionists.John Paul:
Then stop being dishonest and we won't have this problem.MrH:
I have never received a straight answer from you when I've asked what natural phenomena we know to be the product of intelligent agency.John Paul:
That statement is a contradiction. Either something was intelligently designed or it is the product of nature. Nature does not design cars, computers or vending machines. Nature has never been observed to create any information rich systems (ie such as life) or specified complexity.MrH:
You need to offer evidence that we know of any natural structures like the human heart, the eye, the BacFlag, that more or less qualify as irreducibly complex, which we know to have been intelligently designed.John Paul:
Behe has done just that. But you have not offered anything to support that these structures are natural- as in created by nature.MrH:
An IC structure like the outboard motor we know to have been intelligently designed. With an IC structure like the BacFlag we don't have that knowledge.John Paul:
We DO have the knowledge that every time we observe information rich systems, IC and specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelligent agency. How do you think we are able to differentiate between man-made and natural? How do you think we determined Stonehenge was designed and not natural?Perhaps if I keep posting this it may sink in:As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.To falsify the design inference just show us the flagellum can evolve via purely natural processes. Don't blame us because you can't support your position.

PK:
YOur argument rests on confusing the ultimate origins of trees as a class with the origins of individual trees.John Paul:
That is incorrect. MrH posted on the CREATION of trees, not the growth. He later changed. That you don't realize or can't see this is testimony to your dishonesty.PK:
Individual trees are formed by growth. Since we are discussing the origins of individual trees this is the process to consider.John Paul:
We were NOT discussing this before. That individual trees grow does not mean anything as to whether or not they were designed to do so or just do so because the evolved that way naturally.PK:
The question at hand is do you consider that process to be natural or not ?John Paul:
The question at hand is why do evolutionists have to twist what is said or misrepresent reality in order to claim victory in a debate?