Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Nonsense. If you stumble upon a spaceship, which explanation sounds the most reasonable? It was designed and requires a designer or it was assembled out of a junkyard by a random whirlwind that happened to pass by?

Some would argue that a single human cell is far more complex than a spaceship.

Yes, but the spaceship is clearly artificial and not natural and so the natural causes do not suffice.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Yes, but the spaceship is clearly artificial and not natural and so the natural causes do not suffice.

clearly artificial and not natural

Some might want say this is a judgement call... and especially so if they think you intend to explain why you say it's artificial and not natural.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What does "a simpler code" refer to? DNA was no different a million years ago.

Lets think about this question, because it does involve some questions you have avoided
answering for me. A simpler code would be one doing far less than one that does far
more. So I will ask you again, what did the first life have as far as traits go? It could
reproduce, I assume, it could eat, I imagine, it could find food too, I guess. So what else
did the simpler code give with respect to life's traits, what was programmed into DNA at
the beginning of life?

You seem to have some idea since you said it is no different than what we see today.

After answering, can you tell me how you know too? Personally, I think you will not even
touch this, because it shows how faith based you really are when it comes to the distant
past. How much code would all of that take?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Lets think about this question, because it does involve some questions you have avoided
answering for me. A simpler code would be one doing far less than one that does far
more. So I will ask you again, what did the first life have as far as traits go? It could
reproduce, I assume, it could eat, I imagine, it could find food too, I guess. So what else
...[text shortened]... h based you really are when it comes to the distant
past. How much code would all of that take?

I still don't understand what you mean by "a simpler code."

We have no preserved copies of the first lifeforms. They were likely not DNA-based. You were speaking of "a million years ago" though, which is recent in evolutionary terms. Here is some reading if you want to know about what we do and don't know about the origins of life:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
"[b]Natural selection can select for present but not for future function."

Evolutionists apparently want to have it both ways, or maybe they're just confused... because predetermination of a future function is in itself a function of intelligent guidance.

In order to select for a future function an organism would need to think ahead, and recogn ...[text shortened]... part (not just ancillary) of science in general... and especially so in the two examples above.[/b]

Natural selection doesn't require "thinking ahead."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
"[b]Natural selection can select for present but not for future function."

Evolutionists apparently want to have it both ways, or maybe they're just confused... because predetermination of a future function is in itself a function of intelligent guidance.

In order to select for a future function an organism would need to think ahead, and recogn ...[text shortened]... part (not just ancillary) of science in general... and especially so in the two examples above.[/b]

Say we reach a complicated position in a chess game and I have no idea what move to play next. Now, say we replicate that position over 100 boards and on each one I play a random move.

Many of those moves will be neutral (have no impact on the position) and some will undoubtedly be 'bad' (moves that are progressively weak and game ending). Now, say one of those 100 random moves turns out to be a 'good' move that progresses my position in a beneficial way (and is passed on to future move strategy, due to it being so successful)

Would you say the one random move that proved successful was the result of forward thinking or intelligent guidance?!

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I still don't understand what you mean by "a simpler code."

We have no preserved copies of the first lifeforms. They were likely not DNA-based. You were speaking of "a million years ago" though, which is recent in evolutionary terms. Here is some reading if you want to know about what we do and don't know about the origins of life:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Really, when I told you that if a code only has to do a few things by comparison to one that
has to do a great many is beyond you?

Lets get this straighten out, it seems to me very straight forward, you grasp it now?

With respect you 'believe' that the first life forms were not DNA-based!? What!
How did that occur in your opinion and why would it change, and for crying out loud what
observable evidence do you have to support that!?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Say we reach a complicated position in a chess game and I have no idea what move to play next. Now, say we replicate that position over 100 boards and on each one I play a random move.

Many of those moves will be neutral (have no impact on the position) and some will undoubtedly be 'bad' (moves that are progressively weak and game ending). Now, ...[text shortened]... random move that proved successful was the result of forward thinking or intelligent guidance?!

Doesn't that depend on who or what you are playing against? Your environment and all
that various things that can kill off life are always playing a steady game. You misstep and
you are done. How long will random moves take place before a good player destroys the
play on every board?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Doesn't that depend on who or what you are playing against? Your environment and all
that various things that can kill off life are always playing a steady game. You misstep and
you are done. How long will random moves take place before a good player destroys the
play on every board?

Your concerns sir are eliminated by the fact that the game in question is played over millions of years and that the beneficial moves are passed on in proliferation.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Your concerns sir are eliminated by the fact that the game in question is played over millions of years and that the beneficial moves are passed on in proliferation.

And your game Sir is destroyed by the fact that even over a million years garbage in always equals garbage out. If a tornado was active in a junk yard for millions of years it would in your mind be able to create a spaceship?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
And your game Sir is destroyed by the fact that even over a million years garbage in always equals garbage out. If a tornado was active in a junk yard for millions of years it would in your mind be able to create a spaceship?

But it is not "garbage in". It's "randomness in". Not all the random moves are "garbage".

And as I said earlier, natural processes cannot create something artificial (not natural). Being artificial demands a creator.

I'm just saying that the analogy does not hold.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
And your game Sir is destroyed by the fact that even over a million years garbage in always equals garbage out. If a tornado was active in a junk yard for millions of years it would in your mind be able to create a spaceship?

If a tornado was active in a junk yard for millions of years it would in your mind be able to create a spaceship?

That you ask these types of questions demonstrates that you don't understand the basic mechanics of natural selection. That you don't understand that natural selection is NOT entirely random. KJ similarly repeatedly paints himself into a similar corner.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]clearly artificial and not natural

Some might want say this is a judgement call... and especially so if they think you intend to explain why you say it's artificial and not natural.[/b]

Well, unless the planet the aliens are from grows biologic spaceships in the backyard (not likely, I'm guessing life hasn't evolved that far anywhere, to be capable of space travel on its own), then yeah, they're artificial, and therefore created.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
And your game Sir is destroyed by the fact that even over a million years garbage in always equals garbage out. If a tornado was active in a junk yard for millions of years it would in your mind be able to create a spaceship?

I'm genuinely embarrassed for you.

Originally posted by @suzianne
But it is not "garbage in". It's "randomness in". Not all the random moves are "garbage".

And as I said earlier, natural processes cannot create something artificial (not natural). Being artificial demands a creator.

I'm just saying that the analogy does not hold.

Do you believe randomness alone is responsible for the existence of life in the complexity we have it today or do you believe an intelligent designer is responsible? Or is there something else I'm missing?

Randomly picking letters of the alphabet and throwing them in a hat for millions of years cannot reproduce Shakespeare's work. All you will get is garbage. DNA code requires intelligence in my opinion to get the exact order you need for the given functionality.