These hypothesis aren't even testable, so how then can they even begin to understand them?
Perhaps you can show how they aren't testable. Many of the Big Bang predictions have been tested and verified (
CMBR, for example).
Well...where did these processes come from?
Like I said, that's a meaningless pseudo-philosophical question. There is no evidence for a 'before' the Bang; there is no evidence of a 'where' that the processes could have come from.
anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to come about through chance.
Except that:
a) No one claims that complex life forms came about by chance, and
b) All evidence indicates that the complex 'structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s)' arose through completely natural processes and
not by design
for example, a watch.
The watch is irrelevant. Before watches there were sundials; even designs evolve.
Thats many a reason to take the concept of design seriously
Those reasons have all been considered, seriously, for hundreds of years. Folk have taken them into account repeatedly. The conclusion? Those reasons don't actually matter; the evidence says there was no designer.
I'm talking about the ecosystem here, not the origin of life...in 'b' you make no sense either, wtf were talking about o.o?...were you attempting to quote mine?
Your argument that life cannot be sustained without water is not a counter argument to evolution, because evolution:
a) Does not concern itself with how life originated, and
b) Does not posit that living things existed on Earth before there was water
And of course, water does not rely on life for its existence. You're just trying to sell a varnished version of the old IC argument; except that the things you mention as IC are clearly not irreducible, as parts of them can exist perfectly fine without the whole.
But, to move this back to the topic: for the sake of this thread, we've all agreed to assume that life was designed. The next task, then, is to figure out how many designers there were.
Do you have any reasons for us assuming one designer over multiples? Back in
Message 142, we had this exchange:
quote:
Jon in Message 142:
SavageD writes:
I would say the mechanisms and roles for which dna & or 'rna' are used are the defining characteristics of life.
But not DNA itself?
I would probably go deeper into this but for now I have to go, I'm quite busy.
Take your time; I'm simply trying to understand your position. 
As you seem to have more time on your hands now, perhaps you'd be able to clear that up for me.
Jon
Love your enemies!
™ Version 4.2
