Origin of Translation

No it is not. The point is that cars don't f**k. To be more detailed and more polite: cars are not produced through a reproductive process that involves imperfect replication and selection. Any analogy that picks something that doesn't have that kind of reproductive process isn't relevant in any way.Until we found the concept of evolutionary processes we didn't have a good answer for what appeared to be design. However, we now have a completely natural process that can account for outcomes which appear to be designed. It is now longer possible to assume an appearance of design means it had to be purposefully designed.In addition, we can, generally tell the difference between things which are actually designed with a purpose and things which have arisen from the evolutionary process. The difference is the level of "messyness" in the outcome. Living things exhibit this "messyness". Human designed things (with the possible exception of old software) do not. Living things are to use a techie term, "kludges".It seems that once you have selected imperfect replicators it isn't a matter of forcing evolution to take place; it is dammed difficult to have anything else happen.Your analogy ignores the issue of breeding, selected imperfect replicators. It is therefore entirely irrelevant. But I have ample evidence that someone did. I've been in an assembly plant. I've seen TV interviews with designers. I believe it was a human. I can touch a human most any day. I know that they have capabilities that allow for the possibility of them designing a car. I have the overblown-ego idea that it would be possible for me.A car (as noted above) exhibits the kind of design that I expect a reasonably competant human to do. (e.g., the design is not too much more complex than needed, it doesn't have parts that are no longer needed, some parts are a total disconnect from previous cars with no conceivable step wise path to them (DVD navigation) ) In living things I do not see this kind of design at all. I see a connection between all living things unlike the lack of connection between my toaster and car. And if you see God's hand you see one that doesn't design using the kind of design approaches that humans use at all. What you do see is exactly the kind of designs that the evolutionary process produces. The only reasonably conclusion is that, while you may believe God is the designer (and I have a limited amount of argument with that), you have to conclude that the method He used to do that design was the evolutionary process.

You are, of course, right that there is no definitive answer to the origin of DNA. There is a gap in our knowledge here. That is the sum total of the argument for design at this point: there is a gap therefore god did it. This seems to me to be weak theology.I'd at least respect this if those propounding it were willing to state that they would give up their faith when the gap is closed. However, somehow, I doubt that many will do that. Flew sounds like he might be one of the exceptions.

So, in your case, the designer isn't "god"? OK. That leaves some big mystery as to what it was.We have, once live has arisen, a process which can produce apparent "design" without intelligence. Since we don't know any details of how life arose we can't say that that process was involved. There is some likelyhood that there could have been another unintelligent "design" producing process involved or that something akin to the evolutionary process was involved pre-biotically. I'd say that likelyhood is at least as great as your intelligent designer idea.Obviously you'disagree but I'd say it was very much more likely than your idea. We have one concrete example of a non-intelligent process that can produce apparent "design". You have no example of an intelligent designer that is able to act on the formation of life on this planet.That does still leave the unanswered question of how you detect design without already knowing that a designer was involved. That has yet, to my knowledge, to be answered.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-12-2004 03:34 PM

Sorry, I didn't pay close enough attention to this point.You detection of design is based on something "complex and wonderful". However, as I noted we have a process which can produce very complex results (and wonderful I guess but that is even fuzzier in definition than complex is). Since we have this process as an example it leaves your detection mechanism broken. How do you determine "design" that is not formed by such a mechanism from that which is?You then use the "word of God" as your "evidence" for a designer. Since the majority of believers disagree with your interpretation of this word it hardly seems that it is very powerful evidence.In addition, that same "word" has been shown to have been in error when interpreted over the centuries. In fact, there is a a fair number of believers who have interpretations of that same word which are clearly wrong. How does one determine if your interpretation is right?All you really have is writings by humans which have been translated and interpreted in a number of different ways over the centuries. Some (perhaps even many) of the results of this have been shown to be wrong. Now you want to apply it to the formation of life on earth in it's original form 4.5 Gyrs ago? Hardly seems like much of a foundation upon which to stand when you look at it in the historical perspective.

This is off topic. Maybe a new thread.This line is such abysmally dumb theology. It is too easy to demonstrate that parts, if taken literally, are not true.Additionally, the point of the bible is not to be a science text book. The point is the life of Christ. That is why one part can be taken lightly and the other seriously.Geez, I doubt there is a single book of any kind that is 100% true in any case. What a requirement to load on it!

Message 17For an update on that. Even though has noted, so what?