Living organisms are far more complex than the aforementioned non-living components. My point was to show MrHambre was again wrong in what he posted.
But this makes no sense. How does showing that complex nonliving systems are built by more complex living things, indicate that those living things must be built by living things?
Do YOU have ANY evidence that nature acting alone can bring life from non-life?
I'm uncertain what you are asking for... nor why that would be necessary for evolutionary theory.
I certainly have evidence of biological organisms using nonliving material in processes that create other living organisms. This process includes alterations to the secondary organisms. That is all that is necessary for evolutionary theory to be correct.
Are you talking about abiogenesis? That is separate from evolutionary theory. I have no evidence for that. Nor do I have evidence that this is impossible. Too little evidence exists, including info to make accurate mathematical predictions regarding the probability of abiogenesis.
I am loathe to say that a creator of some kind formed the first life. On top of the natural mechanisms necessary to turn nonliving into living material, I'd also need evidence that creators exist at all.
Both viruses and prions require life to already be in existence.
I have no idea where you got this idea. I see others are already dealing with it so I will let you handle them for a bit on this issue.
I no longer believe what you post. Show me where Del says otherwise. I will send him an email to see if he consurs.
I have already posted his own words. What is there to doubt? I will repost the pertinent details again...
message 35 from ID is NOT creationism
Following Del Ratsch quotes taken from this linked open Q&A session transcript at ISCID.
{The position that ID is scientifically sound} is... not equivalent to the view that current design proposals have demonstrated scientific fruitfulness, that opponents of design theories are of necessity confused, irrational, blinded by naturalistic upbringings, or anything of the sort.
I think a lot of Bill's work, and certainly do not mean to denigrate it. But I suspect that to the extent that specified complexity captures the right domain (and it is certainly in the right area) that it does so because it is assuming some of the very materials in question...
I think that one can be honestly convinced that design offers no significant scientific promise and that it represents significant scientific risk... Boyle, for instance - thought that it was a serious mistake to mix "final causes" with "efficient causes"
I think that ID may very well have things to offer science, but I think that it is too early for ID to claim that it has done so. I don't think that it is just obvious that ID will contribute substantively to science...
All of the above are contradictory to your claims that evolutionary theorists are inherently biased and that ID theory has accomplished anything as a replacement theory, much less has more weight.
By all means write to Ratzsch and ask him if he wants to change his mind, or if you need to change yours. I have nothing to fear as I have pointed out twice now, these were his words from an ISCID online chat session.
I don't have to agree with someone 100%. That is not how it works.
You said Ratzsch was the person I and others should read as his book proved how design could be detected. I have shown that this is not so, according to his own words.
In addition, you keep making claims that he specifically rejects.
Not agreeing with someone 100% is one thing, disagreeing with someone on the most important aspects of something, is something else entirely.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
