1. DNA is called the book of life. Can anyone make a book--that makes sense--by just throwing letters randomly?
And eyes are called the windows of the soul, but I don't put windolene on them. Why is it those critical of evolution are so often incapable of understanding metaphorical language. Plus the 'throwing letters randomly' strawman is so patently wrong it hardly seems worth pointing out that random mutation is not the sole mechanism of neo-darwinian evolution.
2. Genetic codes and information are embedded in DNA. Is not intelligence required to decode and process information?
No, if it is then where do you think the intelligence resides in the machinery of protein translation? I'd also contend that the genetic code is not embedded in DNA in any meaningful way.
3. 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?
Another random chance strawman. It is also worth noting that DNA to RNA is not usually consider replication or copying since mRNA is significantly distinct to DNA. Also your note on DNA/RNA is pretty much pure fantasy, or do you have some references to research showing that DNA an be exported and translated to amino acids and that in such cases mRNA can be reverse transcribed and reincorporated into the genome.
4. 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.
Totally disagree. The two things are apples and oranges. Plus I think you will find the universe has both more resources and more time on its hands than you do.
5. What did Miller's failed experiment in 1953 prove?
Seriously? Did you go to 'creationisttrolls'R'us' to pick up your arguments? It proved neither of those things,nor was it a failed experiment. Could you describe what
you think the experiment was intended to prove? I suspect this is yet another strawman much like your 'mere chance' comment.
6. 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?
Definitely the evolutionary one since it at least explains something and has some evidence to support it.
Given how bad it is your thread might be better to focus more intensively on editing your flow chart instead of all these regurgitated creationist arguments.
TTFN,
WK
™ Version 4.2
