What is designing the parts?
Natural processes, like evolution.
Are you unaware that natural processes also produce designs? For example, this ripple design was produced by the natural process of wind travelling over sand:
Upvote
0
What is designing the parts?
Biological reproduction.
The theory of evolution would be unchanged if a simple RNA replicator was created by a deity or advanced race, and then life as we see it evolved from that RNA replicator.
Evolution relies on abiogenesis as much as car repair or metallurgy relies on the Big Bang.
Prove yourself right.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Do you understand how logic works or not?
No, state your case.
We await your response.
see if you search google scholar, do you know what you find?
stellar evolution,
how is stellar evolution involved with the theory of evolution?
see you are defining evolution one way when science uses it another.
you can no longer say ID has no peer reviews, because you refuse to read it.
so I am supposed to
read the peer review
and post peer review arguments by C&P?
wouldn't that be copywrite?
If I don't C&P it and summarize it, then you can find error in my summary. Which makes ME wrong. So thats out of the question too.
See the only way for you to really be proven wrong is for me to break a rule somewhere, well I wont do that.
you can read it yourself just as easily as I can.
If you find the peer review wrong, then fine.
But you can no longer state that ID has no peer reviews.
Natural processes, like evolution.
Are you unaware that natural processes also produce designs? For example, this ripple design was produced by the natural process of wind travelling over sand:
What do ripples in sand from the wind have to do with genetic machinery?
Does wind build skyscrapers?
You are comparing design in sand (non-living materials) to complex
machinery in living organisms keeping them alive.
it's actually more accurate to say "prove there is no neuclear in nuclear physics"
abiogenesis relies on evolution as it's primary engine.
prove me wrong.
I await your response.
you can no longer say ID has no peer reviews, because you refuse to read it.
so I am supposed to
read the peer review
and post peer review arguments by C&P?
wouldn't that be copywrite?
If I don't C&P it and summarize it, then you can find error in my summary. Which makes ME wrong. So thats out of the question too.
See the only way for you to really be proven wrong is for me to break a rule somewhere, well I wont do that.
you can read it yourself just as easily as I can.
If you find the peer review wrong, then fine.
see if you search google scholar, do you know what you find?
stellar evolution,
how is stellar evolution involved with the theory of evolution?
see you are defining evolution one way when science uses it another.
lol so biological reproduction starts evolution?
I bet you would have various opinions on that.
I thought evolution started biological reproduction?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Ripples in sand are designs produced by natural processes.
Do skyscrapers reproduce?
What does complexity have to do with whether or not a design is produced by natural processes?
Does wind and sand reproduce?
Complexity matters because natural processes do not produce nano-sized complex genetic structures that humans can't begin to reproduce.
In fact we often copy designs in nature to make things.
No, which is why we don't see them evolving like life does. The whole point is that design is produced by natural processes.
I don't believe that nature has the mental capacity or random capacity to design complex genetic machinery on the scale that we observe it.
Can you demonstrate this so that I can actually see it working each step of the way? Not on paper or imagined on a fancy drawing. I want actual scientific observation or reproduction.
No, which is why we don't see them evolving like life does. The whole point is that design is produced by natural processes.
Based on what evidence? Why can't nature produce complex genetic structures that humans are not able to reproduce at this time?
Why does that preclude them from being the product of natural processes?
I don't believe that nature has the mental capacity or random capacity to design complex genetic machinery on the scale that we observe it.
you demonstrate this so that I can actually see it working each step of the way?
Seriously, you can accept that nature can design itself, but not that an intelligent creator designed it, and evolutionist claim creationists throw out reason to believe what they do.