(January 1, 2019 at 3:50 am)CDF47 Wrote:(December 31, 2018 at 5:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: If only you would be half as quick to also pick up on what everyone else on this thread who are more knowledgeable about the real state of modern biological science have spent the length of this 11000 post trying to explain to you, instead of tediously regurgitating as you do the same chewed deggeral from the same handful of miserable failures of pseudoscientific charlatans you so misguidedly revere.
I don't find the truth here. I find the truth in the design of living systems.
(December 31, 2018 at 6:48 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Why? I already know you are lying.
Because a picture can say a 1000 words. Watch it operate.
(December 31, 2018 at 10:23 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: "Complexity" remains undefined.
No one has ever defined *exactly* what is "too complex" (in terms of either chemistry or function) to arise naturally, and thus require a designer.
No one can say exactly what the boundary is.
No one can say or provide examples of "not complex enough" - thus needs no designer, or what the exact boundary is for "too complex, needs a designer".
"Complexity" is a fake undefined category.
Everyone knows what complexity is. DNA is not only complex but functional like machine code.
"Complexity" became an issue for the atheists when people started suggesting it supported creation. So now, it's not only saying "no god", but "no complexity." Your Average Joe isn't going to have a problem with the term or even a reasonably educated child, and you can understand what it means without needing a dictionary. Even a good number of atheists use the term, but you'll most likely see it applied differently, and in a way that attempts to explain away belief in a Creator.
