Proof of ID (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:20 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell


> > 
> > Matt: And to me this seems to undermine you... if the only evidence is biochemical reactions... than there is no basis to leap off towards a creator. The biochemical reactions can be an answer unto themselves.
> 
> How did their complex behavior and controls develop? Two levels of code in DNA. -Cart before the horse. We need to actually create some life to get any real answers here, and I don't mean passive tests like Miller-Urey, but active tests where the creation of a functional organism is the goal. -> 
> > 
> > Matt: Chance does have a chance at working. And I'm with dhw, I think its more likely that independent cells are more than mere automatons and can influence their own direction (albeit limited physically).
> 
> Were they self-taught in that supposed ability? The Cambrian seems to exclude chance development.-I've heard one statement recently that the development of rudimentary eye cells was the catalyst for the Cambrian. It seems to have appeared independently in many places at once. I guess I'll put it this way, I'd want to hear what the mechanism was, if it was a creator. How did something come from the ethereal mist and construct a cell from the blue?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"