Well, I was reading through the threads and I realized that the discussion just sort of stopped with the challenge to icthus to give support of his view. I'm not sure why he never responded, or what he believes other than that he is a Christian and apparently does not believe in evolution. Honestly I am quite skeptical of macro evolution (not micro) myself, so I thought I would add some positive scientific evidence to the discussion for there being a creator/designer for life since that is what the challenge was for.
Though I feel that the Cambrian explosion is still a problem for evolution and yes, I did read most of the links given, frankly I got board by the third one and stopped reading. They still don't explain the extremely rapid diversity and complexity (in Geological time scale). The diversity being the large number of phyla, which is the most diversity between species and consequently requires the most amount of genetic mutation/natural selection/evolution. The Complexity goes with that, being the change from single celled organisms to complex multi-cell organisms with complex biological systems is so short a time span, nor is a proven mechanism capable of bringing it about by natural processes given, but rather assumed.
As for positive evidence, there are two lines of argument that I find convincing: 1) the irreducibly complex systems we see in life that defy a neo-darwininan evolution of random mutation and natural selection by blind natural processes. Things like the bacteria flagellum and the eye to name a few. Yes, I know these are hot topics, but I have yet to see anything other than a fanciful story to explain them. Even if it is a "plausible" story, that says nothing of its truth value or scientific value. Once past the story telling, the actual evidence seems to make the question even harder to explain. 2) is the information that is found in life, specifically in the DNA of living organisms, not to mention the origin of DNA itself. I have yet to see any explanation for the information that is found in life or how random mutation and natural selection can attribute for a genetic language. And yes, I use the term language on purpose, because it has all the marks of being a language. This is after all a common terminology when describing the complexity and purpose of it, because it fits all the trademarks of being one.
I know I have not given many details, but I wanted to see if there would be a response and what direction the discussion would follow. I look forward to what you have to say.
Though I feel that the Cambrian explosion is still a problem for evolution and yes, I did read most of the links given, frankly I got board by the third one and stopped reading. They still don't explain the extremely rapid diversity and complexity (in Geological time scale). The diversity being the large number of phyla, which is the most diversity between species and consequently requires the most amount of genetic mutation/natural selection/evolution. The Complexity goes with that, being the change from single celled organisms to complex multi-cell organisms with complex biological systems is so short a time span, nor is a proven mechanism capable of bringing it about by natural processes given, but rather assumed.
As for positive evidence, there are two lines of argument that I find convincing: 1) the irreducibly complex systems we see in life that defy a neo-darwininan evolution of random mutation and natural selection by blind natural processes. Things like the bacteria flagellum and the eye to name a few. Yes, I know these are hot topics, but I have yet to see anything other than a fanciful story to explain them. Even if it is a "plausible" story, that says nothing of its truth value or scientific value. Once past the story telling, the actual evidence seems to make the question even harder to explain. 2) is the information that is found in life, specifically in the DNA of living organisms, not to mention the origin of DNA itself. I have yet to see any explanation for the information that is found in life or how random mutation and natural selection can attribute for a genetic language. And yes, I use the term language on purpose, because it has all the marks of being a language. This is after all a common terminology when describing the complexity and purpose of it, because it fits all the trademarks of being one.
I know I have not given many details, but I wanted to see if there would be a response and what direction the discussion would follow. I look forward to what you have to say.
"An unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
