What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

Or perhaps the poster is not a native speaker of English. Nothing wrong with asking for coherency, but the "retarded" crack was uncalled for, your faux disclaimer not withstanding. I'll bet you would never call an adult with a cognitive disability retarded to his face.

Pasteurization is experimental, operational science.

Here is the inductive argument.All IC systems of known origin were designed by humans.Therefore, all IC systems of unknown origin were designed by humans.We know this can't be true, therefore IC fails as evidence of design.

Therefore, not all IC systems are designed. Period.

Until you show that the inductive argument does not require humans as the designer then I would say that the inductive argument has failed.

I think most people think there is a difference between living and non living.

Koch, A.L., Enzyme evolution: I. The importance of untranslatable
intermediates, Genetics 72:297—316, 1972.

It becomes a matter of chance if some good combination of mutations happened during that time.

This is not a coherent logical argument, as the conclusion does not followfrom the premises.

Once again, that conclusion would not follow from the premises.

I have done so here Message 149.

No more so than those who claim it came about by design.

Seriously? What percentage of planets in the universe have we thoroughly searched for life? We haven't even checked all of the planets and moons in our own solar system.

The same could be said for any non-living matter made up of more than one atom.

First of all, the burden of proof is on those who claim life can arise through natural processes. Not the other way around.

Second, the fact that despite all our efforts we fail to find life elsewhere is actually evidence for the fact that life does not arise naturally, or else it would also have elsewhere.

Life isn't just chemistry, it is an emergent property of the atoms when arranged in a very specific way.

Yet I'm the one racking up the fallacies in this thread.

havoc writes:There is no known natural law that causes non living matter to become living matter.

Learn to read.

At times we can determine if a non biological artifact is the result of outside interference and influence. Read the OP. In it I post examples.When someone can present the same level of evidence regarding biological things then we can consider that they might be a product of outside interference and influence.So far NO Creationist or Intelligent (talk about and oxymoron) Design marketeer has produced comparable evidence.

Our eyes have two types of light detectors, rods and cones. The cones are mainly in the central part of our retina and need bright lightthey detect colour. The rods are in the peripheral part and are good in dim light but can’t distinguish colours.There are three types of cone. One is sensitive mainly to red, a second to green and a third blue. Each of them sends a signal to the brain if it detects light. But the signal by itself says nothing about colour, only about the brightness of the light it can detect. Yet from the simple system, we can distinguish millions of different colours. Here’s how.If a small beam of red light hits three adjoining cones, only the red one will fire, sending a signal to the brain. But this signal by its self doesn’t say ‘red’it is only the lack of signal from the adjoining blue and green cones that makes the brain see ‘red’.But what about yellow? Here, a beam of yellow light, wavelength about 580 nm, will still land on three cones. But as they have a range of detectable wavelengths, both the red and green cones will detect the light. When the brain receives signals from adjoining red and green cones, it sees ‘yellow’. If the light is somewhat greenish yellow, the green cone will send a slightly stronger signal, so the brain sees a greener shade of yellow.The brain can distinguish between many different wavelengths of light by how they affect the three types of cone. And if all three are fired equally strongly, the brain sees white.

Why?

We've only been able to look at the barest fractrion of a percent of our own solar system, let along the rest of the galaxy, and even that's only the merest fraction of a percent of the universe. If I were to look at just my backyard, would I be justified in saying that elephants, tigers, any plant over a couple inches, and koalas don't exist becasue I don't see them there?

If we find life elsewhere, would that be evidence to you that life can arise naturally, or would you simply assume that God, or someother "designer" just happened to create life there as well?

I'd say that life is indeed just a self-perpetuating chemical reaction. Consciousness, thought, these are emergent properties of certain types of life, but when you get down to single celled creatures, the difference between chemistry and biology bgins to become very fuzzy.

I don't agree with the fallacy you pointed out. You're still just making assertions without evidence.

The very smart Arthur C. CLarke once said, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong." And don't take this as an insult, but you're not even an elderly or distinguished scientist.

slevesque writes:All I'm saying is that, if anything, the fact life is only found on earth can only be seen as evidence against life arising naturally. In no circumstances can this be taken as evidence that it can.

It is also irrelevant. If color vision provides an advantage it will be selected.
There is no mystery there.There is NO evidence of any outside interference or influencing entity.

havoc writes:I dont think evolution could ever lead to this level of design. So I find these fine tuned features as evidence of design.