A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

Explain please ! I thought that was adequately explained. The term goal infers directed intent, which is I would have thought, incompatible with Darwinian Evolution,(D.E.) wouldn't you agree. Rather the fact that D.E. is used to account for the existence of "complex" organisms such as man demands that the direction of complexity quantity be such that there is an increase not decrease, I would have thought that a fundamental and logical principle like this was obvious. I think you missed the point here too.
Sure, in the example analogy that I have used, (poor though it is in respect to this matter), there is no quantitative decrease in information content, there has however been a qualitative change in the ordered complexity of the information content.
In the examples that used, you did change the quantitative level of information and you intelligently co-ordinated the changes, so that they still make some grammatical sense and so still code for a degree of ordered complexity, (again it is a poor analogy, but hopefully you will grasp the basic principle.)Cheers,
NanoGecko

---

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Why is it that you keep pushing this ridiculous bandwagon about a "goal".
When did I ever say that it is a "goal"? Have you considered that it may be that you do not grasp what I am saying.
Please accept my apologies if I'm not making myself clear enough for you, or perhaps it's a cultural thing, Australia to U.S. slight language differences.
What squirming ???WHERE is the testable and repeatable evidence that information INCREASES through the action of natural selection ? And PLEASE don't just say, "we are here, so therefore it happened", because that isn't evidence, but it is circular reasoning.
For one with so many strong objections you are very weak on supplying REAL scientific evidence in support.Look at this by just considering the facts, and I'll try to express this as clearly as I can for you.
1. The Fact is we DO EXIST,
2. We are complex cellular organisms,
3. We didn't get here by cellular information decreasing, did we, that's obvious, at least we agree on that.
4. If you believe that evolution is the method that we got here from the "alleged" primordial soup, then it should be obvious to you that there had to be an increase in cellular information. This is not a "goal" it is simply making an elementary observation of the REAL world through evolutionary coloured glasses.
5. Natural selection is the selective mechanism that all of the changes within species groups, extinctions etc. have brought about the living world as we see it today.So please! provide some real irrefutable examples of naturally selected mutations that have brought about a net increase in the ordered genetic information of that organism. So if that is true then provide some scientifically testable and repeatable examples of where this adding of information has occurred as you claim it has. You are very quick to regurgitate the predictable evolutionary doctrine as so many do, but where in the REAL world does the ACTUAL evidence fit this model?
AND PLEASE, no more circular reasoning.Cheers,
NanoGecko

---

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 NKJV

I was never suggesting that we don't have viruses and bacteria on this planet. Relatavistic comparisons between various species of organisms is not evidence for an increase in complexity; the increase is assumed in accordance with evolutionary beliefs.It is important that you make the distinction between the real process of natural selection and the assumed process of evolution.
I say Dawinian evolution so that it is understood that I am talking about the assumed process by which the diversity of all life on this planet came about over whatever length of time has been agreed upon as necessary for it to happen, presently measured in billions of years.
I do not say Darwinian Evolution to confound, trick or apply any devious agenda to the debate but rather to make it clear that I mean the mechanism by which the diversity of all species has come about. Mutation is not in question, neither is it doubted that mutation can bring about benefits to an organism such as the swine influenza virus recently in the news, what is likely is that the mutation brought about no new information to the virus.But it's likely that the virus lost information that previously expressed as a useful function for example for the virus.
The up side is that the mutation also provided the ability for it to cross species barriers, an advantage.
No new information though.To illustrate further, hypothetically, if say down the track humans became extinct, then the recently acquired benefit of the virus would no longer be a benefit and the previously mentioned expression for the original useful function has also gone forever.
If humans don't become extinct, then this naturally selected for advantage remains, but whatever way you look at it,
I haven't seen one shred of evidence to indicate that natural selection from mutation of this kind is going to build the diverse range of species that we see around us.
It is always going to be a type of influenza virus, it may alter to some degree, it may gain genetic advantage from mutations, but it is never going to evolve into a bacteria like Eschericia coliform for example or a protozoan no matter how many Billions of years you wish to wait, and that's the point. The complexity is heading in the wrong direction.Cheers,
NanoGecko

---

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 NKJV

You'll get no argument from me on this part of your reply! The decrease is continuing at each new generation of a specie.
It is just as well that the DNA contains so many base pairs of coded information, and that there is a safety mechanism in that usually both parents need to have the copying error (mutation) before the mutation will express itself in the offspring. Why aren't you supporting this claim with empirical evidence.
In other words, why not provide specific examples of where a mutation has ACTUALLY INCREASED specified and ordered genetic information.
Sure your belief and faith that mutations have brought about an increase in ordered information is clear enough, but where's the proof.
Provide some evidence from the huge range of life out there. Otherwise this claim is nothing more than that, it's just a claim based on evolutionary dogma, circular reasoning and ignorance of the real evidence out there. This explanation, unfortunately is once again missing the point and is no explanation at all.
What I'm talking about is the actual INCREASE in genetic information.
The writing of CODED INFORMATION that expresses for actual functioning biological structures and processes that was not there previously.
Your analogy is only about a mixing of genetic information via the amazing process of sexual reproduction to produce a variety of offspring outcomes.
Sure the offspring is different to it's parents but this is not an increase of genetic information, it is a polymorphic change of genetic information.
These polymorphic changes are common and occur to some degree in every new generation, BUT they do NOT constitute a coded increase in ordered complexity in the genetic code but rather a mixing of current information at the gene level, and consequently these changes express according to implementation instructions for that particular gene, but this certainly does NOT QUALIFY to be counted as an explanation for the writing of actual new ordered and complex information at the base level or the gene level.I will again try to get the point across.
The NEW information that I am talking about is the ACTUAL NEW INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE OCCURRED by those that believe in the evolutionary fairy story. The information that brought about the great biodiversity of species that we see in the world all around us.
The information that has supposedly appeared via evolution from the starting point of the first cell at biogenesis.Up until now I have NOT seen any examples.
I have seen a lot of rhetoric, but no evidence.
Please cite some examples.
Actual scientific proof that evolution has occurred.Without any proof to the contrary there is no scientific reason to rule out that all life and the environment in which life exists was specifically and intelligently designed by the actions of God. Let's make one thing clear though, it is the non-scientific commitment to a materialist explanation & philosophy that excludes God from science, not science itself.
In fact the evidence is clear and it is all around us, every time we talk to another or eat some food or sing a song.
We all take a lot for granted, myself included.
I know that some will raise the anthropomorphic principle as an explanation, but really that explanation is ingenuous if you ponder it for a while.This debate could continue for a thousand years or more, but really IF a person has made his or her mind up that the living world was designed as we see it by evolution, then nothing that I can say here is going to change their beliefs.
That's just the way it is.Design is deliberate, intentional, considered and specified to achieve a specific result. I do not accept that natural selection acting on mutations (which in fact do occur randomly despite the unsupported objections) is any explanation at all for the immense design abounding everywhere I look.
Please supply some examples that substantiate the claim that mutations add actual orderly complex coding information to the DNA of an organism.

---

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 NKJV

Hey!!! No disguise necessary, I most certainly believe that all of Creation was Created by God.Please find a verbatim extract from the New Testament of the Bible:-
NKJV John 1 vs 1 - 14 below, this describes who the Creator is; Jesus Christ of Nazareth is his name; He is the "I AM".1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.The Bible is a book of history and many other things, but it is mainly about Jesus from Genesis to Revelation.
The above passage makes it very clear that all things were made through Jesus Christ.
We are all free to accept or reject this. I accept this as the truth.
The creation model fits the actual evidence in my opinion more convincingly than the evolutionary model.Quoting part of your response ..."that creation was perfect and the fall/sin caused devolution. The only way things can evolve is downward, the only change in information is loss of information..." I couldn't have put it better myself and I am glad that you understand the Creation account.You have stated that belief in Creation is a religious belief; I say no problem! BUT realise this, that equally is evolution a religious belief.
Whether it is realised or not, EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, of this fact there is no doubt, if it were otherwise then I would expect that sound empirical evidence would have been supplied that would clearly indicate that evolution is the mechanism that created the diversity of life as we see it today.
But the fact is, that no vital evidence in support of evolution has been forthcoming, just questionable just-so-stories.There are a lot of Straw men, & smoke and mirrors "To Prop Up" the faithful's belief in evolution, and to explain away the glaring inconsistencies and uncomfortable truths that are often dismissed out of hand WITHOUT an honest evaluation of the actual facts, simply because the alternative is to those people unthinkable.
Good science doesn't exclude the most obvious solution to a problem, because of a presupposed framework of ideas based on speculation, conjecture and a philosophical belief system.
Good science looks at all the available facts and then draws a conclusion.Therefore don't dismiss Creation so quickly. The facts fit the evidence very well. Everything was designed by God.

---

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 NKJV