(February 21, 2016 at 6:44 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:(February 20, 2016 at 9:56 pm)AAA Wrote: Sequential information in cells and molecular mediums that allow information to be transferred between molecules seem like designed features. It can easily be interpreted as evidence of design, especially when we see intelligently created technologies that resemble it, yet we never see non-living systems mimic it.
Bolded the one honest word you've said on this matter, and the most important word. Seems is not the same as is, just because something looks designed to you doesn't make it designed, especially as you've amply demonstrated that you've a woeful grasp of biology and what evidence is in general.
Underlined the second most important section. Yes, appearances can be interpreted as evidence, but unfortunately for you, they are not evidence. When you conflate the two reach phrases 'seems like' and 'can be interpreted as' you yourself are acknowledging (probably subconsciously) that you have no case.
Truly, as I described you last month, you are an arse brained creatard idiot. Oh, and by the way, how does it feel for you to get schooled by somebody who doesn't even have a science degree, especially with all your boasting about how great a student of biology you are? Stuff I remember from 20 years ago, and stuff I've picked up from popular science books are more scientificially valid that the santorum that emanates out your arse every time you try and prove god by disproving evolution.
Yeah, things aren't always as they seem, but because it seems that way, the null hypothesis should be that it was designed. If things that are only found in designed features are also found in cells, then that is evidence of design.
And the fact that you don't have a science degree is showing.
