OLAADEGBU:

Evolution theory is not modern science it's an attractive religion because you believe its given you a reason to convince yourself that there need not be God to be accountable to.

In that case, what is science and what is religion? I ask because you seem very confused about what they are and what they do.

OLAADEGBU:
Have you forgotten your Darwinian theory that asserts that you evolved from primordial soup? You need more faith to believe the evolution fairytale than you will need to believe in the creation event. Evolution theory is not science it is a religion.

That is not what the theory of evolution says. Take the time to read it up.

thehomer:

So information is a message.

I cannot answer it because as far as I can tell, it is meaningless. DNA isn't a message unless of course you can tell me who this "message" is being transmitted to.

Your assumption that DNA is a message is actually wrong so your question is based on a faulty premise.

Those "definitions" are simply false distinctions based on a faulty notion. Read my response to your question on radioactivity. Now is nuclear physics "observational science" or "historical science"?

I will suggest that you peruse this link here and update yourself with the laws and conclusion of information and then proceed to scientifically falsify them by demonstrating the initial origin of information that is from material sources.

thehomer:

Are the rates of decay assumed or measured?

I said that they are assumed. If you insist that they are measured why do they not agree with uniformitarian dates across board for the same event?

thehomer:

But you'll keep believing something that is wrong because of religious faith and blindness to the actual world around you.

It is actually blind faith in the religion of evolution that makes you arrive at irrational, unscientific, unreasonable and illogical conclusions.

thehomer:

Well which race is closest to how Adam supposedly looked? Any other race would be considered to have lost information relative to Adam wouldn't it? Based on what you're saying, if Adam's skin had a higher melanin, then those who don't have a high melanin content have lost information.

You still don't get it. I said there is one race. What part of that don't you understand?

thehomer:

Actually the genetic information is not "lost", it is simply different and this difference is the result of various factors. Long fur can still be obtained in future offspring depending on the circumstances they face then.

Is it gained then? You need to take a crash course in Genetics it will help you grasp the topic better. This link is a good place to start from.

thehomer:

In that case, what is science and what is religion? I ask because you seem very confused about what they are and what they do.

That is not what the theory of evolution says. Take the time to read it up.

Read what "Evolution" is all about here and then see whether it passess the science test.

The Christian's sole belief in God is found in the Bible which he claims is from that God. The bible is written by men, presumed to be influenced by him. In other words, the Bible and the Cristian's fundamental belief can be separated and in fact the arbitrary belief in God is superior to the Bible.

To Ola especially, does TAB mean bat?? That's information.

thehomer:

If it isn't a science textbook, then why refer to it for scientific information? That italicized part of your sentence makes no sense.

though not a science text book, but whenever it touches on science it is always spot on.

You can Take that to the bank.

^^
No its not. You don't mean sCience, you mean knowledge. Science hadn't developed at that time.

Kay 17: ^^
No its not. You don't mean sCience, you mean knowledge. Science hadn't developed at that time.

what

I said "touches" on scientific matters.

Going by today's facts.
(Whenever they cross part)

truthislight:

though not a science text book, but whenever it touches on science it is always spot on.

You can Take that to the bank.

Science can't agree with Christianity, because it presumes that all phenomena are natural and not supernatural. Coupled with that is its stringent method unlike Faith and some axiomatic belief in the bible.

So on facts, they have different interpretations/truths.

Kay 17: Science can't agree with Christianity, because it presumes that all phenomena are natural and not supernatural. Coupled with that is its stringent method unlike Faith and some axiomatic belief in the bible.

So on facts, they have different interpretations/truths.

Kay 17: Science can't agree with Christianity, because it presumes that all phenomena are natural and not supernatural. Coupled with that is its stringent method unlike Faith and some axiomatic belief in the bible.

So on facts, they have different interpretations/truths.

Kay 17:

The Christian's sole belief in God is found in the Bible which he claims is from that God. The bible is written by men, presumed to be influenced by him. In other words, the Bible and the Cristian's fundamental belief can be separated and in fact the arbitrary belief in God is superior to the Bible.

You don't even need the Bible to know that there is God, His creation declares His glory. We have 7 senses to detect the Uncreated Creator which are our sense of sight, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling with these you can see God's world that He created but if you want a relationship with Him then you will need to use the two other senses which are your conscience and the revealed Word of God.

With your conscience you can access the Moral Law of God which shows you your need of receiving Christ as your personal Saviour and Lord. He is both the Creator and redeemer of our souls.

Kay 17:

To Ola especially, does TAB mean bat?? That's information.

You should know that they mean two different things depending on what language you are speaking. Would I be right to say those words were not typed by anyone but that it just happened by chance and time? How long will it take for such chances to get a complete encyclopedia?

@Ola

How do you determine the personality of God without the Bible.

In your explanation for the diversity of species, you said information was always constant. That would contradict the fact the TAB is different from BAT.

OLAADEGBU:

I will suggest that you peruse this link here and update yourself with the laws and conclusion of information and then proceed to scientifically falsify them by demonstrating the initial origin of information that is from material sources.

The link mixes useful and useless information. You would be better off understanding what is there and what you want me to take a look at. I showed you that you were conflating different meanings of information but rather than answering, you sent me the pointless link. If that link is so useful, why don't you use that link to answer this question? Who is the message in DNA being transmitted to?

OLAADEGBU:
I said that they are assumed. If you insist that they are measured why do they not agree with uniformitarian dates across board for the same event?

"Uniformitarian dates" don't determine how we tell that something is measured so I don't see the point you're trying to make. Radioactive decay is measured using clocks and mathematical formulae.

OLAADEGBU:
It is actually blind faith in the religion of evolution that makes you arrive at irrational, unscientific, unreasonable and illogical conclusions.

So what is science and what is religion?

OLAADEGBU:
You still don't get it. I said there is one race. What part of that don't you understand?

Merely saying there is one race doesn't make it so. A biologist will say humans are a species but various races (if they're inclined to use the term). But according to you, a difference in hair length shows loss of information. Humans have differences in the colour of their skins, the type of hair they grow etc so which race is closest to your Adam? Don't try to run from this question because it shows the clear problems with what you're pushing. If according to your idea of race, there is only one race, then why are there differences in e.g skin colour that is inherited? Is it because information was lost?

OLAADEGBU:
Is it gained then? You need to take a crash course in Genetics it will help you grasp the topic better. This link is a good place to start from.

I said it is different. Simply read what I wrote. That site isn't a biology site so I see no reason to refer to it for useful information.

truthislight:

though not a science text book, but whenever it touches on science it is always spot on.

You can Take that to the bank.

Of course just as the presence of plants before the sun. I notice that you're running away from my demonstration of a contradiction in the Bible.

thehomer:

Of course just as the presence of plants before the sun. I notice that you're running away from my demonstration of a contradiction in the Bible.

run

Sick and tierd of dishonesty.

Kay 17:

@Ola

How do you determine the personality of God without the Bible.

Read Romans 1:20 it will show you the evidence.

Kay 17:

In your explanation for the diversity of species, you said information was always constant. That would contradict the fact the TAB is different from BAT.

What I can remember is discussing the meaning of the created kinds and their descendents. Can you throw more light into intended objections?

thehomer:

The link mixes useful and useless information. You would be better off understanding what is there and what you want me to take a look at. I showed you that you were conflating different meanings of information but rather than answering, you sent me the pointless link. If that link is so useful, why don't you use that link to answer this question? Who is the message in DNA being transmitted to?

If after reading throught the link you still find it difficult to answer my question, then I will accept your initial answer that you don't know, wouldn't know and cannot know.

Let me give you another challenge by directing you to the laws and conclusions and the end of the link. Try and falsify the information laws and conclusions stated there by demonstrating its initial origin from purely material sources.

thehomer:

"Uniformitarian dates" don't determine how we tell that something is measured so I don't see the point you're trying to make. Radioactive decay is measured using clocks and mathematical formulae.

I don't expect you to see my point especially with those evolution googles on. Uniformitarianism is based on a belief that "the present is the key to the past." It is a belief because there is no evidence that today's geological process is the only way to explain earth's history and determine its age. None of these so called evolutionist "scientists" observed the past geological processes except the uncreated Creator together with Noah and His son during the Flood when the processes were catastrophic on a world wide scale. And you use this belief to assume the age of the earth? Radioactive decay doesnt even agree with your uniformitarian dates anyway.

thehomer:

So what is science and what is religion?

What did you get from the link I suggested on this issue? Molecule to man evolution is not science and religion is not Christianity, but The belief in molecule to man evolution is religion while Christianity and the Bible is confirmed by real science.

thehomer:

Merely saying there is one race doesn't make it so. A biologist will say humans are a species but various races (if they're inclined to use the term). But according to you, a difference in hair length shows loss of information. Humans have differences in the colour of their skins, the type of hair they grow etc so which race is closest to your Adam? Don't try to run from this question because it shows the clear problems with what you're pushing. If according to your idea of race, there is only one race, then why are there differences in e.g skin colour that is inherited? Is it because information was lost?

Race is an evolutionist terminology which supports racism. Evolutionists believe that humans and chimpanzees are close relatives, that they descended from a common ancestry. Evolutionists believe that Caucasians are superior races to Negroes because they have evolved earlier than the inferior races. This is what you are made to believe but real science gives evidence of natural selection and speciation that gives rise to variation within the same kind and not as the molecule to man evolution would like us to believe. The human kind consists of different people groups (not races) who have more or less melanin that determines whether they are lighter or darker due to natural selection and adaptation. Adam had all the information in his DNA before the Fall, and if you know anything about genetics at all you will understand how genetic information in the human genome can only be lost and not gained and therefore cannot evolved into another kind as you have been falsely taught..

thehomer:

I said it is different. Simply read what I wrote. That site isn't a biology site so I see no reason to refer to it for useful information.

You can say that it is not an evolutionist site but it can teach you a thing or two regarding the subjects you are ignorant of.

OLAADEGBU:

Read Romans 1:20 it will show you the evidence.

That's still from the bible.

What I can remember is discussing the meaning of the created kinds and their descendents. Can you throw more light into intended objections?

You were talking about the constancy of information.

Kay 17:

That's still from the bible.

You got no excuse as the Bible says.

The evidence that you can use your 5 senses to access goes like this:

When I look at a building, how do I know that there was a builder? I couldn't want a better evidence that there was a builder than to have the building in front of me. I don't even need faith to know that there was a builder. All I need are eyes that can see and a brain that can think.

The same principle applies to the existence of God. When I look at creation, how can I know that there was a Creator? Creation reveals to me that there is a Creator. I couldn't want a better evidence that there is a Creator than to have the creation in front of me. I don't need faith to believe in a Creator, all I need are eyes that can see and a brain that can think.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

But if I want the builder to do something for me, then I need to have faith in the builder.

"Without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6)- The Evidence Bible.

Kay 17:

You were talking about the constancy of information.

Can you give examples or quotes?

^^

First of all, we know man made objects by our experience. And that all complex objects aren't man made. That's why its easy for me to know a house, car, plane, rocket is made by man. However other complexities like snowflakes, water cycle, mountains, rivers are formed by Nature's workings by our experience. And man made, intelligently designed objects are a tiny bit fraction of complexity we know.

Second, how do you answer the question, why there is something rather than nothing?

OLAADEGBU:

If after reading throught the link you still find it difficult to answer my question, then I will accept your initial answer that you don't know, wouldn't know and cannot know.

I pointed out to you that your link was useless. If it was useful, why don't you use it to answer your question?

OLAADEGBU:
Let me give you another challenge by directing you to the laws and conclusions and the end of the link. Try and falsify the information laws and conclusions stated there by demonstrating its initial origin from purely material sources.

Those conclusions are useless unless you can tell me who the message is being sent to.

OLAADEGBU:
I don't expect you to see my point especially with those evolution googles on. Uniformitarianism is based on a belief that "the present is the key to the past." It is a belief because there is no evidence that today's geological process is the only way to explain earth's history and determine its age. None of these so called evolutionist "scientists" observed the past geological processes except the uncreated Creator together with Noah and His son during the Flood when the processes were catastrophic on a world wide scale. And you use this belief to assume the age of the earth? Radioactive decay doesnt even agree with your uniformitarian dates anyway.

You are still making irrelevant statements. Radioactive decay is measured. Refusing to accept this fact shows that you're simply too ignorant about what you're trying to criticize and that you're not qualified to attempt this criticism.

OLAADEGBU:
What did you get from the link I suggested on this issue? Molecule to man evolution is not science and religion is not Christianity, but The belief in molecule to man evolution is religion while Christianity and the Bible is confirmed by real science.

Stop running away from a direct question. What is science, what is religion and what is the difference between them?

OLAADEGBU:
Race is an evolutionist terminology which supports racism. Evolutionists believe that humans and chimpanzees are close relatives, that they descended from a common ancestry. Evolutionists believe that Caucasians are superior races to Negroes because they have evolved earlier than the inferior races. This is what you are made to believe but real science gives evidence of natural selection and speciation that gives rise to variation within the same kind and not as the molecule to man evolution would like us to believe. The human kind consists of different people groups (not races) who have more or less melanin that determines whether they are lighter or darker due to natural selection and adaptation. Adam had all the information in his DNA before the Fall, and if you know anything about genetics at all you will understand how genetic information in the human genome can only be lost and not gained and therefore cannot evolved into another kind as you have been falsely taught..

Race is an English word that has certain meanings. The statement I highlighted in bold is false. Making such false statements amounts to lying for Jesus. Such different groups wherever they occur whether in humans or other animals can be referred to as a race. Actually due to your ignorance on genetics, you've simply made a statement so wrong that refuting it would require more words than I'm ready to type here.
Again I have to ask, which of the races today most closely matches Adam? From the colour of their skin to the type of hair they have?

OLAADEGBU:
You can say that it is not an evolutionist site but it can teach you a thing or two regarding the subjects you are ignorant of.

Please go back an dread what I actually wrote. I get scientific information from science sites. If scientists don't agree with your claims, then you're probably not doing science. You can use that as a rough guide because your self deception runs deep.

Kay 17: ^^

First of all, we know man made objects by our experience. And that all complex objects aren't man made. That's why its easy for me to know a house, car, plane, rocket is made by man. However other complexities like snowflakes, water cycle, mountains, rivers are formed by Nature's workings by our experience. And man made, intelligently designed objects are a tiny bit fraction of complexity we know.

Let me introduce you to real scientists whose scientific laws stands the test of time.

Louis Pasteur, who formulated the law of biogenesis which has not and cannot be refuted: He says:

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator"

These bonafide scientists could observe that both nature and living organisms exhibit design and any rational scientist will conclude that there must be a designer and this designer is God.

Isaac Newton who is also a father in the field of scientific discoveries said:

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being"

Kay 17:

Second, how do you answer the question, why there is something rather than nothing?

You missed out "everything." Everything with a beginning is something and something requires a cause. The Cosmos has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. That cause is God and God is no thing. He is the infinite uncreated Creator.

thehomer:

I pointed out to you that your link was useless. If it was useful, why don't you use it to answer your question?

You admitted that you don't know and you don't want to know despite me furnishing you with information. Since you are content in your ignorance don't let me confuse you with the facts.

thehomer:

Those conclusions are useless unless you can tell me who the message is being sent to.

Kay 17 understands the import of the links I suggested I can only take a horse to the brook but I cannot force it to drink.

thehomer:

You are still making irrelevant statements. Radioactive decay is measured. Refusing to accept this fact shows that you're simply too ignorant about what you're trying to criticize and that you're not qualified to attempt this criticism.

What did you learn from the assumptions associated with the arrival of those dates that I posted earlier?

thehomer:

Stop running away from a direct question. What is science, what is religion and what is the difference between them?

If you cannot understand the answers from the links I posted then there is no point answering you here.

thehomer:

Race is an English word that has certain meanings. The statement I highlighted in bold is false. Making such false statements amounts to lying for Jesus. Such different groups wherever they occur whether in humans or other animals can be referred to as a race. Actually due to your ignorance on genetics, you've simply made a statement so wrong that refuting it would require more words than I'm ready to type here.
Again I have to ask, which of the races today most closely matches Adam? From the colour of their skin to the type of hair they have?

Have you ever read the quotes of your apostle, Charles Darwin on what he said on what he termed to be races? If not I will post them here for your perusal.

thehomer:

Please go back an dread what I actually wrote. I get scientific information from science sites. If scientists don't agree with your claims, then you're probably not doing science. You can use that as a rough guide because your self deception runs deep.

If your "scientific sites" cannot give you answers to foundational questions then you have to reconsider what you call science to see that you've not been sold a dummy.

OLAADEGBU:

Let me introduce you to real scientists whose scientific laws stands the test of time.

Louis Pasteur, who formulated the law of biogenesis which has not and cannot be refuted: He says:

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator"

These bonafide scientists could observe that both nature and living organisms exhibit design and any rational scientist will conclude that there must be a designer and this designer is God.

Isaac Newton who is also a father in the field of scientific discoveries said:

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being"

When did personal religious beliefs of scientists become scientific authority? Theories are what matter.

Intelligent design is a fraction of all we witness and its very difficult for you to prove design is necessary.

You missed out "everything." Everything with a beginning is something and something requires a cause. The Cosmos has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. That cause is God and God is no thing. He is the infinite uncreated Creator.

The present Universe is what has a cause. A singularity from which spacetime arises is uncaused so far.

Kay 17:
When did personal religious beliefs of scientists become scientific authority? Theories are what matter.

When these scientists think God's thoughts they make proper scientific discoveries. Louis Pasteur, for instance, is well known for the law of biogenesis which states that life always comes from life and this is what operational science shows us. We observe living organisms producing other organisms after their own kind. This scientific law disprove your so called spontaneous generation, that life spotaneously formed from non living chemicals believed and taught by evolutionists. This scientific law confirms what the Bible teaches, that God supernaturally created the first diverse kinds of life on earth and made them to reproduce after their kind. We see that molecule to man evolution violates the law of biogenesis. So you can see that real scientists do real science that confirm the Bible.

Kay 17:

Intelligent design is a fraction of all we witness and its very difficult for you to prove design is necessary.

As I said earlier that both nature and living organisms exhibit design this would lead any rational thinking scientist to conclude that there must be a designer and a scientist who thinks God's thought after Him would know that this Designer is God.

Living creatures for instance do have irreducible complexity how then would a gradual evolutionary path account for this if you insist that intelligent design isn't necessary.

Kay 17:

The present Universe is what has a cause. A singularity from which spacetime arises is uncaused so far.

Real science has no evidence for the cosmic egg which you call singularity to be uncaused, its all fiction for the adults. Do you really believe that something can come out of nothing?

Ola, what do you mean by design? My definition of design is a conformity with physical laws, therefore physical laws themselves can't be designed or constructed. And all functioning entities developed by Nature or man necessarily conform to physical laws.

If we go by your suggestion that all life comes from life, then the origin of life isn't a valid question. And that no theory can exist to explain it.

What we understand by life changes everyday, viruses and priones defy our common definitions for life.

Kay 17:

Ola, what do you mean by design? My definition of design is a conformity with physical laws, therefore physical laws themselves can't be designed or constructed. And all functioning entities developed by Nature or man necessarily conform to physical laws.

Intelligent design can be defined as a theory that holds that "certain features" of living things were designed as an "intelligent cause" as opposed to being formed through purely natural means.

Design can be explained biblically in Romans 1:20 and it states that everyone knows there is a God because the Creator designed the universe so that His many invisible attributes would be "clearly seen" in the things He made which makes you guys without any excuse. Which stands in sharp contrast with the evolutionists position of the game of chance and time.

Kay 17:

If we go by your suggestion that all life comes from life, then the origin of life isn't a valid question. And that no theory can exist to explain it.

What scientists who are creationists mean by biological life is anything that contains genetic information, can reproduce offspring that resemble itself, grow and develop, control cellular organisation and conditions including metabolism and homeostasis and responds to its environment. For short I will use the acronym: MRS GREN: Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion and Nutrition. And they are the only ones who are consistent with the Law of biogenesis which supports the Bible stand on. And this leads to the question: How did life originate and how did all the information contained in the DNA originate?

Kay 17:

What we understand by life changes everyday, viruses and priones defy our common definitions for life.

The Bible defines life as Nephesh Chayyah, meaning organisms with a life spirit. Life is that mysterious quality that makes a creature alive at one moment but is absent the instant the creature dies. A baby's body that is no longer breathing after death contains the same DNA, body, heart and the mass as it did only before it died. So the question still remains: What is missing? and where does life come from?

The Divine Designer
October 26, 2012.

"Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?" (Isaiah 40:12).

The answer to this rhetorical question can only be God, the divine Designer of all the intricate interrelationships of His great creation. Four of the disciplines of natural science are implied here, and in each case a key principle of that science is anticipated.

The emphasis is on the precision of the divinely allocated quantities of each component. First, there is the precise balance of the waters of the earth between the oceans, rivers, groundwater, and atmospheric waters. Hydrology is the science of earth’s waters, and life on earth is dependent on the fine tuning of the components of the hydrologic cycle. "He looketh to the ends of the earth. . . . To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure" (Job 28:24-25).

The atmospheric heaven also has been carefully dimensioned in size and composition to make life possible, as formulated in the science of meteorology.

The "dust of the earth" is nothing less than the basic chemical elements out of which all things are made. The accuracy with which elements combine with each other is based on their valences, and all of this is involved in the study of chemistry. The principle of isostasy ("equal weights" ) is the fundamental principle of the science of geophysics, involving the weights of mountains and hills, continents, and ocean basins.

God does not deal in chance and caprice, even with inanimate physical systems such as mountains and waters. Not even a sparrow can "fall on the ground without your Father" (Matthew 10:29). HMM

For more . . . .

The difference btw a dead baby and a living one is the continous functioning of its organs.

The problem with the design and your God is: you are unable to explain how design is neccessary to an omnipotent being creating the world from a void. Why does water boil at 100 degrees, why not 2 degrees? Why is there gravity on earth? Why isn't man totally resistance to radiation and intense heat? Why is there cold?

Until you can adequately explain how design is compatible with God, there is nothing to say. Because a being who can will anything to exist, doesn't need a design.


Also by admitting an intelligent designer, you also admit pre existing physical principles/laws which the designer contemplates before designing and creating his creation.

Kay 17:

The difference btw a dead baby and a living one is the continous functioning of its organs.

Well said, but what is the reason for the continuous functioning of its organs? You can reboot a computer but you can't bring back a fly that is dead, why?

Kay 17:

The problem with the design and your God is: you are unable to explain how design is neccessary to an omnipotent being creating the world from a void. Why does water boil at 100 degrees, why not 2 degrees? Why is there gravity on earth? Why isn't man totally resistance to radiation and intense heat? Why is there cold?

It is so simple. Design is the evidence of intelligence and not chance.

Kay 17:

Until you can adequately explain how design is compatible with God, there is nothing to say. Because a being who can will anything to exist, doesn't need a design.

You will also agree with me that information should have intelligence behind it. In information technology, do you know of any information that has no intelligent input?

Kay 17:

Also by admitting an intelligent designer, you also admit pre existing physical principles/laws which the designer contemplates before designing and creating his creation.

This brings us back to the Law of first Cause. I can give you scientific evidence that the universe was created and by faith I believe that the uncreated inifinite Creator created all things. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

1. As long you can rejuvenate a heart or a kidney to work and repair fast dying cells. But this a distraction.

2. You didn't address my point, physical laws make things determinate, like boiling water. I didn't talk abt chance at all. Also by stating design is a mark of intelligence, then mountain formation is definitely by an intelligent designer

3. What suggests a spiritual/supernatural source.

Kay 17:

1. As long you can rejuvenate a heart or a kidney to work and repair fast dying cells. But this a distraction.

I'm not talking about rejuvenation here. 'Am refering to life and death. When you kill a fly why did the fly die when you disorganised all its cells? As a scientists can you organise the cells back to form life again? If not, why not?

Kay 17:

2. You didn't address my point, physical laws make things determinate, like boiling water. I didn't talk abt chance at all. Also by stating design is a mark of intelligence, then mountain formation is definitely by an intelligent designer

Not just physical laws, you have to include immaterial laws such as laws of logic and laws of morality? God created mankind in His own image and has the right to set rules for our behaviour.
Mountains are formed only towards the end of, and after the Flood of Noah by the collision of the tectonic plates and the associated up-thrusting.

Kay 17:

3. What suggests a spiritual/supernatural source.

God also upholds the entire universe by His power. In the Word of God there is power. God is beyond time and has also promised to uphold the future as He has the past (Genesis 8:22).

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear"(Hebrews 11:3)

1. Let's forget about that. Its a distraction.

2. I take that as an admission. Yes, mountains demonstrate a leve of design as well as functionality, however as you pointed out, its not grown by an intelligent designer, rather determined by the interaction of physical laws. Logic and morality are not relevant in this discussion.

3. You didn't answer my Q.