Most convincing evidence for creation theory

We "know" this how?Can I live to be a thousand by staying out of the sun?

Of course. Many designed objects have designers who are perfectly visible.And, of course, many things which appear designed have no designer at all.

They did not say that it was good evidence. You are a liar. Is the Qur'aan also evidence for Creationism? How about the Book of Mormon? When you pretend that evolution is atheistic, we all know you're lying, you realise that? This is a lie. The definition of an irreducibly complex system is one which ceases to function if you remove any of its parts. What a bizarre lie.P.E. states that relatively "rapid" evolution alternates with stasis. What a huge, huge lie. Microevolution is observed constantly.

Can you tell me who designed the RNA species in this experiment?

I'm mildly curious to know what you think the "Cambrian explosion" was.I fail to see how the evolutionary diversification of animals with hard parts 580 million years ago supports the fairy-story story with the talking snake. Could you, y'know, join the dots for us here?

I notice that you snipped a bit of Straggler's post. Let's quote him in full, shall we. You got that? He says that your best argument has been refuted.So, a fortiori, have all your worse arguments.However, as he points out, the nice thing about Irreducible Complexity was that it was a genuine attempt to raise a scientific question, rather than a religious fanatic screaming halfwitted lies. As such, it did make a nice change.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But this is a lie, isn't it? It's very easy to refute Behe's ideas.As the court found in the Dover Trial (remember that? wasn't it fun!)"Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."Here's a brief refutation:By definition, an system is irreducibly complex if removing one of its parts causes it to lose function. As Behe writes in Darwin's Black Box. an irreducibly complex system is:"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"This means that such a system can't have evolved by a process the last step of which was the wholesale addition of an entire part to a non-functioning system.But of course no-one claims that evolution works like that, so Behe is fighting a straw man.Besides this massive gaping theoretical flaw in the I.C. palaver, we can also see the evolution of irreducibly complex structures in the fossil record, e.g. the mammalian inner ear. At no point do any parts pop into existence by magic, because evolution doesn't work like that. I take it that by "honest and intelligent persons" you mean "halfwitted liars".Even Behe is honest enough to admit that his idea doesn't do what he wants it to.In 2001, Michael Behe wrote: "[T]here is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work." Behe specifically explained that the "current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system", but the "difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place".So, he doesn't know that I.C. "imploded evolution into oblivion". Would you tell us why not? Is he not an "honest and intelligent person"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You know, you could turn that from a dirty, stinking, filthy, loathsome, idiotic, drooling, moronic, disgusting, loathsome, degraded, cretinous, drooling, drivelling, halfwitted lie into a truthful statement simply by removing the inverted commas --- and the colon.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you enjoy being humiliated in public, and sometimes it's hard to see any other explanation for your behavior, then why don't you bump your thread about the Great Pyramid?As I recall, I'd just exposed your silly lies about the Egyptian Book Of The Dead, and then for some reason you ran away.As you've claimed that this is in the top 6 pieces of evidence for Creationism, perhaps it's worth another look at it?

But surely the A. F. D. is falsified just by pointing to things like, yes, snowflakes again, or the Mandelbrot set, or to RNA species arising from abiotic chemicals, or to self-replicating computer programs arising out of random computer code. Where is the Designer? N.B: There was, of course, an intelligence involved in the latter two cases, as is in the nature of any simulation or experiment --- but the RNA species / computer programs are not the product of design; even if we commit the mistake of thinking that the experimenters are part of the model, the scientists involved would then be in the position of a Deist God who makes the laws of nature and then lets nature make itself.---Ah, and now the thread's running out just as I have something other than bunkum to respond to. Such is life.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.