@ Kay17: Why did you repost what I'd already replied to ? Causality has no causal power but a cause always refers to an object with a causal power eg humans, clouds etc.

anicheibo:
The fact dat the rise of dna is inexplicable doesn't destroy d whole theory of evolution... theres a reason why it is considered a theory and intelligent design is not. Every sound theory is able to predict and postdict phenomenon within its discourse, we've seen evolution do it several times, intelligent design hasn't done it once. We dont get d whole dna issue right now, doesn't mean we cant. The beauty of science is its ability to say "I dont know". Stop filling d gaps with intelligent design

Intelligent design doesn't fill gaps. It makes an inference based on what we see humans do. If science indeed can say "I don't know" it should admit the problem with abiogenesis and consider intelligent design. If you think ID hasn't made predictions and postdictions you are ignorant about the theory.

Kay17:

Of course I would have no argument because you are unable to respond intelligently.
Your arguments against natural encoding of the DNA is premised on the belief that Nature/Universe and in their prior existence as Preuniverse were chaotic. Hence they fall apart like dead flies.
Asking me how physical laws began is similar to asking when causality began or when the triangle was created, those are tough questions and you should tread carefully.
I think physical laws are responsible for the design and shape the Universe takes. They are fundamental to the Universe and its workings. For example for humans to create any thing, they must have accurate knowledge of physical laws like those of motions, causality etc; and with these knowledge we create our cars and planes and houses. However linear thinkers like you and Uyi, unfortunately fall into the error of believing and comparing the entities and objects we create with the Universe.
A design is specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;

Given your definition, living things are designs. As I've explained before, you don't need to know physical laws to invent. That may be applicable to an extent in some cases eg building nuclear reactors but certainly not in all cases. Physical laws are made by humans. They began proper with the arrival of modern science. Physical laws cannot design anything. Here's the definition of physical laws fron Wikipedia:

"A physical law or scientific law "is a theoretical principle
deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group
or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement
that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain
conditions be present.""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

As you can see physical laws are descriptive statements.

UyiIredia:
@ Kay17: Why did you repost what I'd already replied to ? Causality has no causal power but a cause always refers to an object with a causal power eg humans, clouds etc.

Why does the cause relate to the effect in a linear manner?

UyiIredia:


Yes. Case in point. The light bulb was invented before the wave-particle duality nature of light was understood and before there was a quantum theory explaining how hot metals emitted electromagnetic waves. Another example is the bicycle, the physics of what keeps it balanced while moving is still a mystery. There are more than several examples of things which were invented before scientists explained the laws behind them.

you want Nature to produce a plane with seats? Uyi where did you leave your powers of deduction?!

so you would agree with me that inventors who do not have a sufficient understanding of their inventions, stumbled on such inventions by chance, right?

Kay17:

Why does the cause relate to the effect in a linear manner?

That's simply the way it is by definition.

UyiIredia:


That's simply the way it is by definition.

Why are babies born?

Uyi's answer: babies are by dictionary definition human infants

UyiIredia:


That's simply the way it is by definition.

Why are babies born?

Uyi's answer: babies are by dictionary definition human infant zs

UyiIredia:


That's simply the way it is by definition.

Why are babies born?

Uyi's answer: babies are by dictionary definition human infants

Kay17:


you want Nature to produce a plane with seats? Uyi where did you leave your powers of deduction?!

so you would agree with me that inventors who do not have a sufficient understanding of their inventions, stumbled on such inventions by chance, right?

You have a habit of avoiding the substance of my posts. I recall my deleted '6 Months Of Atheism' thread where you danced around my request of a natural process making codes.

Some inventions were stumbled on by chance (eg popsicles), some were done conscious effort (eg the light bulb) and some elements of both (eg X-ray machines).

Kay17:

Why are babies born?
Uyi's answer: babies are by dictionary definition human infants

More like, why is water H20 ? That's simply how it is, by nature.

two different people saying one thing about the same person

Group A believes in God
Group B is sure there's no God
(There might also be a group C who just was proof of God)
When group B dies, they cease to exist.
When group A dies they go to heaven or hell.
We all get it! And because this issue has been argued for centuries, can we now go to bed?
When we wake up, we pop a bottle of beer. And while sipping slowly, we hum what we both share in common: I exist and I'm loving this bottle of beer

When one dies, whatever he believed in while alive he is then free to experience, nobody's business. That is to say, whether he is supposed to be conscious or not. Arguments doesn't really matter but that everyone should believe what he/she believes in.
(My last sentence too has also been used for centuries)

UyiIredia:


You have a habit of avoiding the substance of my posts. I recall my deleted '6 Months Of Atheism' thread where you danced around my request of a natural process making codes.

Some inventions were stumbled on by chance (eg popsicles), some were done conscious effort (eg the light bulb) and some elements of both (eg X-ray machines).

Why on earth would nature have to create a plane with seats for you Uyi?! because that is what you expect from it and it is ridiculous.


obviously someone who doesn't know the workings of a bulb but invents it, must have stumbled on it. except he has basic knowledge of it

UyiIredia:


That's simply the way it is by definition.

If i were to follow your cues, then i would say the dictionary nor human language can not determine causality.

We observe an effect trailing a cause and define it as such but that doesn't explain why the effect follows the cause. My explanation is, this is a peculiar working of the Universe. without causality, all efforts at designs will be futile. but causality is so prevalent that we take it for granted.

Kay17:


This is a tricky question because I cannot deny the complexity in the Universe and at the same time, complexity and design seem to go together but 'design' does suggest a respective 'designer' alongside complexity. Is nature literally intelligent? no. But in any other sense yes.

Ok so...

1. You admit that there is complexity in the universe.
2. You admit that it seems designed and so suggests a designer
3. You deny that this apparent design suggests intelligence in a literal sense but may may be true in any other sense.

Have I accurately represented what you said?

thehomer:

Wrong again. Hunger is the perception that you want to eat.

Wrong. I can want to eat without being hungry. You are confusing appetite with hunger.

You can feel hungry without the hunger pangs.

I see. So what physical properties inform you that it is hunger you are feeling apart from hunger pangs?

Actually, one of the components of pain is the transmission of those signals carried by the nerves. Different nerves give different perceptions of pain. Hunger pangs have properties of length since contractions involve a change in length.

So your physical properties also have physical properties too. You are confused

An effect can also be a property.

Not in the physical sense. Physical properties and physical effects are clearly distinct from each other

Hunger pangs.

Wrong. That is not a physical property

I asked whether or not it has a physical nature. Should I take this as you saying that hunger has no physical nature?

You may....provided you understand it to mean that hunger has no physical properties.

Kay17:


Of course I would have no argument because you are unable to respond intelligently.

I guess since you cant answer, all that is left is the typical atheist recourse to flame throwing and pretending to laugh it off.

Kay17:

Your arguments against natural encoding of the DNA is premised on the belief that Nature/Universe and in their prior existence as Preuniverse were chaotic. Hence they fall apart like dead flies.

This statement attempts to indicate that we have concrete proof that the universe existed in an ordered fashion. That is quite false... infact the whole premise of evolution is that it all occurred via random mutations and that we evolved to what we are today because those random mutations that conferred evolutionary/survival advantages were retained while those that did not died off. Its funny how on one hand, atheists argue for an uncoordinated, random process of biological evolution YET claim that the universe started out as an ordered system (completely going against the 2nd law of thermodynamics by the way)... with no evidence. I asked very clearly... how did the physical laws that you say make the big bang "predictable" start? Where they always in existence? Rather than answer clearly, you resort of course to the tired waffling.

Kay17:

Asking me how physical laws began is similar to asking when causality began or when the triangle was created, those are tough questions and you should tread carefully.

why should we tread carefully? You either know or you dont. The creationist claims that causality began with an intelligent designer... the atheist says of course not, that science explains it all. So where is the alternative scientific explanation? Are they tough questions because you frankly have no clue and there is no evidence at all? In that case, how is your "belief" any different from that of the creationist?

Kay17:

I think physical laws are responsible for the design and shape the Universe takes. They are fundamental to the Universe and its workings. For example for humans to create any thing, they must have accurate knowledge of physical laws like those of motions, causality etc; and with these knowledge we create our cars and planes and houses. However linear thinkers like you and Uyi, unfortunately fall into the error of believing and comparing the entities and objects we create with the Universe.

Basically you dont know... this is your speculation. So on what basis do you think myself and Uyi are wrong? How do you know that physical laws are fundamental to the universe? the only way you know is that it is quite clear that without those laws, the earth basically cannot exist... so essentially you are working from the answer already...

There are 2 options - either those physical laws always existed (i.e. they have no cause and simply appeared by magic - and somehow, by random chance, selected this planet to seed life on) or they started somewhere.... which is it?

Kay17:

A design is specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;

This is word salad that is meant to answer what exactly?

Kay17:


Why on earth would nature have to create a plane with seats for you Uyi?! because that is what you expect from it and it is ridiculous.


obviously someone who doesn't know the workings of a bulb but invents it, must have stumbled on it. except he has basic knowledge of it

why not? Afterall "nature" was able to create a human brain... by magic of course.

Kay17:

What in nature would propell it to build an oil rig or an aeroplane with seats in it?!!!

uh the exact same thing in nature that propelled it to fit an entire 30000 genes that control an entire human into the nucleus of a cell that is smaller than the width of a human hair...

if nature can create such magic then why cant we expect it to build an oil rig? An oil rig is just series of metal pipes afterall... it is far less complex than the human cell so why is that so hard?

UyiIredia:


Intelligent design doesn't fill gaps. It makes an inference based on what we see humans do. If science indeed can say "I don't know" it should admit the problem with abiogenesis and consider intelligent design. If you think ID hasn't made predictions and postdictions you are ignorant about the theory.

Its sad you just called intelligent design a theory. ID is just a fancy name for creationism and most of its (known) proponents are conservative christian americans (tells you a lot). I'll honestly like to see d predictions or postdictions it has made. Kindly post them here.

anicheibo:

Its sad you just called intelligent design a theory. ID is just a fancy name for creationism and most of its (known) proponents are conservative christian americans (tells you a lot). I'll honestly like to see d predictions or postdictions it has made. Kindly post them here.

this is an intellectually lazy assumption. Considering that there are at least 1 billion christians on earth, that America's population is roughly about 300 million (83% of whom claim to be christian)... i'm not sure how approximately 249 million of 1 billion translates to "most" (and that is assuming that every christian in America identifies as conservative).

The problem is that the atheist alternative is no better... it is simply a different set of beliefs (grounded in blind faith), wrapped in poorly understood pseudo-science to give it a veneer of credibility.

Before you demand the predictions made by ID, kindly tell us how the big bang led to the DNA... thanks.

thehomer:

You're saying that I exist and I'm made up of certain physical structures. This isn't new. Tell me something new. The fact that you used many words doesn't impress me.

Wrong. It is funny to watch you try so hard to avoid what I am saying. . .What I am saying is that not only are you made up of certain physical structures, those physical structures have purposes and are specifically formed the way they are in order to function according to their purposes. Do you deny this?

Information has to be for instruction and creating meaning. Got it.

Good

No. Computers can also generate information but I won't say they currently have minds.

Are you saying that computers don't merely create data rather they create purposefully instructive meaning? Because that's what it means to create information (as you admitted in your comment above).

...So if you are really saying that computers generate information in the true sense of the word, then please explain to us how they do not have minds even though they create information (in the true sense). If not, then my claim still stands that only mindful entities can create information

I didn't say minds were physical but that they have a physical basis.

Ok, so are minds physical or non-physical? And if you think that they are physical, then what are their physical properties?

This is actually incorrect. Lots of the arrangements of DNA won't have an effect on the body form. Lots of mutations are neutral. There is a lot of randomness when it comes to the arrangement of DNA. Certain parts are more conserved than others. Secondly, the information you're referring to is the human abstraction of the physical molecule.

I see, so are you saying that an abstraction of a physical molecule (NOT the actual information encoded in the molecule by the specific arrangement of the nucleobases) is what instructs your cells on how to form your body?

And this is where your confusion is clear. Take a look at the definition you presented as information. You said it is the arrangement of data for instruction and creating meaning. These are all abstractions. DNA is a physical molecule that humans have been able to represent in an abstract manner.

Again, is it the abstract manner humans have represented it that instructs your cells or is it the information represented by the specific arrangement of nucleobases in your DNA that instructs your cells on your body's form and function? Which is it?

Wrong again. Information doesn't define me. Information is secondary to the physical structures of the DNA and the environment. The information about me comes after my actual presence. This is why I said you have your relationship backwards.

Strawman. I wasn't talking about "information about you". The specific arrangement that defines your DNA structure is information. . .and yes it defines you. You quite literally are your DNA.

That wasn't what I asked. Is God a mind floating around without a body? If you think he is, please can you show me a mind without a body?

Maybe God is a mind with a body or without a body. That's besides the point. The point remains that since information defines you, you are mindfully created. Whether God has a body or not is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether you are mindfully created or not. However, if you keep stumbling over this and you believe that a mind cannot exist without a body, then feel free to assume that God has a body. It doesn't change the fact that your creator has a mind.

This is a different question. You're asking me for a good reason to believe in your God. Well one good reason to believe in him would be if he were to reveal himself to me just as my friends have revealed themselves to me.

I don't know how your friends have revealed themselves to you and I don't want to assume. So, what will God revealing himself to you look like?

davidylan:


this is an intellectually lazy assumption. Considering that there are at least 1 billion christians on earth, that America's population is roughly about 300 million (83% of whom claim to be christian)... i'm not sure how approximately 249 million of 1 billion translates to "most" (and that is assuming that every christian in America identifies as conservative).

The problem is that the atheist alternative is no better... it is simply a different set of beliefs (grounded in blind faith), wrapped in poorly understood pseudo-science to give it a veneer of credibility.

Before you demand the predictions made by ID, kindly tell us how the big bang led to the DNA... thanks.

notice how I said proponents not adherents... kindly google Intelligent design and read it up... try wikipedia... intelligent design is psuedo-scientific at best and isn't accepted by any unbiased peer reviewed journal

thehomer:

It is relevant because you're trying to make arguments for your God's existence. Lots of things fall into the category of information if you're going to be using things as distinct as language and the genetic code.

Not in this instance, I wasn't, rather I was specifically correcting you for wrongly accusing Uyi of committing a category error. And yes Language and the genetic code fall right into the same category.

I know what it is. It is a very broad concept.

meh

Granite gives you information about the temperatures that were once in the environment where it was originally located, the earth gives you information about its contents, microprocessors give you information about its speed, designs and what not.

So are you saying that the earth, granite and microprocessors all fall under the information category? If you do, then why did you accuse Uyi of committing a category error since both human language and the genetic code give information?

Secondly, is there anything that doesn't fall under this category of information as you have defined it using granite, the earth and microprocessors? If so please name them

Just for the sake of clarity, this was the definition you gave for information.
Wikipedia:Things that are or can be known about a given topic; communicable knowledge of something. [from 14th c.]

Looks like you actually lack comprehension and as usual, you're failing to be evasive. Please if you have answered this question, simply provide a link to your answer. Here's the question again. Would you say that hunger is material or immaterial? Would you say it has a physical or non-physical nature? I'll tell you what I meant by the word non-material when you've answered my question.

You are confused see here. You forget that our conversation runs along multiple lines. You accuse me of being evasive for not answering a question that you didn't ask on this line (which I have answered on the line of discourse in which it was asked by the way). It is an unfair accusation but I will forgive you for it, as multiple lines of discourse can confuse a person (case in point you here).

Let me remind you of what this line of conversation is.
See the following in sequential order:
1(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35242107)
2(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35242960)
3(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35243900)
4(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35244592)
5(https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35248095)


Now that's by the way. See that I have answered your question here (https://www.nairaland.com/2353987/three-arguments-gods-existence/14#35246414) - note that I had already answered before you accused me of evading it.

It is your turn to answer mine: What do you mean by the word "non-material"?

thehomer:


It looks like you've now developed the interesting inability to understand the implications of what you say. When you say something didn't arise by natural means, how exactly would you say it arose?



I know humans design computer programs. Are you saying that DNA arose by natural means? The mad argument I see here is the assertion that DNA somehow requires some supernatural entity.



Because you're confusing your subjective experience and limited knowledge for some sort of cosmic order, direction, arrangement, precision and efficiency.

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me?

The only assertion I have made is that DNA is designed. Simple.
And I have asked you to tell me why you deny its design, but you've only been trying to distract me with talk about supernaturalism.
Please stick to the subject at hand, or just admit you have no reason to deny obvious design.

davidylan:


uh the exact same thing in nature that propelled it to fit an entire 30000 genes that control an entire human into the nucleus of a cell that is smaller than the width of a human hair...

if nature can create such magic then why cant we expect it to build an oil rig? An oil rig is just series of metal pipes afterall... it is far less complex than the human cell so why is that so hard?

Please explain to me what is magical in any gene that goes against the laws of physics...

davidylan:


this is an intellectually lazy assumption. Considering that there are at least 1 billion christians on earth, that America's population is roughly about 300 million (83% of whom claim to be christian)... i'm not sure how approximately 249 million of 1 billion translates to "most" (and that is assuming that every christian in America identifies as conservative).

The problem is that the atheist alternative is no better... it is simply a different set of beliefs (grounded in blind faith), wrapped in poorly understood pseudo-science to give it a veneer of credibility.

Before you demand the predictions made by ID, kindly tell us how the big bang led to then DNA... thanks.

Serious question. Are you friends with that lagosian scientist that asserted that because like poles of magnets repel homosexuality is bad?

Are you guys the standard our nation produces?

This post is the real deal as far as folly is concerned, ray comfort would be well and truly proud. There's far, faaaaar too much wtf here to handle in a single session. Not that I really care to. I will however point out one little thing; that isn't the atheist position. That is the position real scientists hold. A few of them are even xtian. (Actually it's the position of anyone with a brain that's been exposed to the evidence and hasn't been brainwashed, but that's another story)

You see this as an xtian vs atheist thing, take the harebrained xtian stance then claim to be a scientist. Hmmm

You'll then claim one can be both xtian and a scientist whilst doing your hardest to disprove that notion.

Hmmmmm

MrAnony1:

Wrong. I can want to eat without being hungry. You are confusing appetite with hunger.

Appetite is different from hunger and can sometimes be due to hunger. Looks like you're the one making this confusion in your attempt to be pedantic.

MrAnony1:

I see. So what physical properties inform you that it is hunger you are feeling apart from hunger pangs?

Hunger pangs are the physical sensations. That is why they're called hunger pangs.

MrAnony1:

So your physical properties also have physical properties too. You are confused

How is what I said confused? Is anything that I said there actually incorrect? Or are you once again demonstrating your own personal failure of thinking things through?

MrAnony1:

Not in the physical sense. Physical properties and physical effects are clearly distinct from each other

I said an effect can also be a property. Unless you're saying an effect can never be a property, then you've not countered what I said.

MrAnony1:

Wrong. That is not a physical property

How is it not a physical property?

MrAnony1:

You may....provided you understand it to mean that hunger has no physical properties.

Since hunger has no physical properties according to you, how do you know when you're feeling hungry? How do you explain the hunger pangs that people feel when they're hungry?

MrAnony1:

Wrong. It is funny to watch you try so hard to avoid what I am saying. . .What I am saying is that not only are you made up of certain physical structures, those physical structures have purposes and are specifically formed the way they are in order to function according to their purposes. Do you deny this?

You'll have to be clearer. Saying something functions according to its purpose is uselessly vague. Crystals are specifically formed and function according to their purpose. Please can you tell me what my purpose is?

MrAnony1:

Good

Are you saying that computers don't merely create data rather they create purposefully instructive meaning? Because that's what it means to create information (as you admitted in your comment above).

Yes computers present information.

MrAnony1:

...So if you are really saying that computers generate information in the true sense of the word, then please explain to us how they do not have minds even though they create information (in the true sense). If not, then my claim still stands that only mindful entities can create information

What sort of explanation are you looking for when there are numerous examples all around you? A GPS device uses data to create navigation information for you to use. Or isn't the output from GPS devices information?

Your claim doesn't stand even if I'm unable to show you're wrong because that is making an argument from ignorance. But as I've shown above with the example, you're wrong.

MrAnony1:

Ok, so are minds physical or non-physical? And if you think that they are physical, then what are their physical properties?

Minds are not physical but they arise from the physical brain.

MrAnony1:

I see, so are you saying that an abstraction of a physical molecule (NOT the actual information encoded in the molecule by the specific arrangement of the nucleobases) is what instructs your cells on how to form your body?

No that isn't what I'm saying and what is wrong with you? How did you arrive at that conclusion from what I said? How on earth can a human abstraction be what makes cells function?

MrAnony1:

Again, is it the abstract manner humans have represented it that instructs your cells or is it the information represented by the specific arrangement of nucleobases in your DNA that instructs your cells on your body's form and function? Which is it?

Neither. It is the physical arrangement of the molecules and the physical laws that all these molecules follow.

MrAnony1:

Strawman. I wasn't talking about "information about you". The specific arrangement that defines your DNA structure is information. . .and yes it defines you. You quite literally are your DNA.

How is what I said a strawman? You really need to learn not to simply name drop fallacies but to actually explain how what I said is a fallacy. Secondly, you say you're not talking about "information about me", but my DNA which you say is information that defines me. Isn't that the height of confusion?

I am not quite literally my DNA. My DNA cannot type on a computer. This sort of absurd statement really baffles me. Are you confused about what words mean or are you confused about how to use words?

MrAnony1:

Maybe God is a mind with a body or without a body. That's besides the point. The point remains that since information defines you, you are mindfully created. Whether God has a body or not is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether you are mindfully created or not. However, if you keep stumbling over this and you believe that a mind cannot exist without a body, then feel free to assume that God has a body. It doesn't change the fact that your creator has a mind.

No it is not besides the point. It is a crucial point. You keep asserting that information defines me despite the fact that I've told you that you have things the wrong way around.

How exactly is the question about God having a body a red-herring? Again, don't just name fallacies, but explain how I've committed them.

Since you say God has a body, then he too is bound by physical laws and would need an explanation of how he came to exist. Secondly, did your God create me specifically?

MrAnony1:

I don't know how your friends have revealed themselves to you and I don't want to assume. So, what will God revealing himself to you look like?

Then I'll tell you. They grew up with me, I saw them, touched them, spoke with them and they knew each other. Can your God do these things with me?

Joshthefirst:
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me?

I understood you well enough. When you say something didn't arise by natural means, how would you say it arose? Please answer that question. It will help clarify any misunderstanding.

Joshthefirst:

The only assertion I have made is that DNA is designed. Simple.

Why don't you defend your assertion?

Joshthefirst:

And I have asked you to tell me why you deny its design, but you've only been trying to distract me with talk about supernaturalism.

Because it isn't obvious to me that it is designed as other objects are designed. It is as designed as other natural objects. Please read the title of the thread. Last time I checked, your God is supposed to be a supernatural entity so how is talking about him a distraction? Or are you afraid of him being exposed?

Joshthefirst:

Please stick to the subject at hand, or just admit you have no reason to deny obvious design.

I've stuck to the subject at hand you on the other hand seem scared of discussing your "supernatural" God. Let us also talk about your God.

UyiIredia:


The human description IS the law. Physical laws describe the physical world. Kay17 made the mistake of attributing causality to them and that's wrong. The fact becomes even more obvious considering that some laws have been wrong and so were dropped or modified. For example, the conservation of mass law was upheld until nuclear reactions showed lost mass could be converted to energy and the law was modified accordingly.

This is not up for debate. Physical laws being contingent on human understanding can be changed or erased, the physical world can't. Physical laws lack causal power, the physical world has causal power. In trying to defend Kay17 you've made a fool of yourself.

It isn't. The inference to creation rests on two arguments.

1) The argument against the ability of natural processes to make living systems: This is based on the constraints of natural processes as observed. Coecervates, volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, sunlight and other ABIOTIC natural factors can effect mountains and naturally-occuring chemical compounds etc. They can't effect the sort of compounds seen in living things given the high risk of cross-reactions, lack of availability of starting materials etc.

This is incorrect. Natural factors actually can produce the compounds seen in living things. The current unavailability of starting materials doesn't necessarily mean that these things couldn't have happened naturally. It could simply mean that given the age of the earth, the conditions found in the early earth simply are no longer available.

UyiIredia:

This is the problem of synthesis and it is evidenced by the virtual lack of biochemicals outside of living things. Furthermore, assuming biochemicals existed these natural factors lack the foresight to organize such materials into a living system. Natural factors that supposedly made life would just as quickly kill it and not resurrect it. This is the problem of organization and it is evidenced by the billions of corpses natural factors ONLY degrade and never repair.

What biochemicals do you have in mind?

UyiIredia:

2) The observation that intelligent agency is crucial to making systems analagous to living things and understanding them: Indeed the intelligent agency we refer to are humans. However, we isolate intelligence since it is this human property that's sine qua non to man's ability to make devices and understand living systems. Being human isn't enough, babies are humans and so are mentally-disadvantaged persons. It is through intelligence we can make things like Velcro, pumping machines, computers, pulleys etc that are comparable to organs and systems in livings like the heart, brain etc. It is also through intelligence we can understand the systems in such living things and treat them when they are sick, modify them (as in GM foods) and incorporate some of their traits in systems we design. From this we infer a similar intelligent being created us.

Actually, the items you listed aren't comparable to organs like the heart and brain. I still don't see the justification for that inference in the last line. You're saying humans make pumping machines, humans can understand something about human hearts therefore some God created humans? How exactly do these things follow?

UyiIredia:

As you can see, the first argument is a negative one against abiogenesis, and by extension, evolution. If creationists only used the first argument to assert that there was a God, it would be an argument from ignorance. But as it is, the second argument is a positive one for design, or creation if you will.

You've not actually made an argument against evolution. And that first argument is simply an argument from ignorance until you actually say how life began.

UyiIredia:

This is a poor argument. Natural processes also affect man-made machines, do they make them ? To be specific, I'll need you to show natural processes that can, at least in theory, make a DNA. The evidence would be stronger if they've been observed making it, but at least we'll have a good start. A basis to discuss to plausibility of natural processes making life.

There are several hypothesis about how DNA arose. I can of course post a few links but I don't know how DNA actually arose. It still doesn't mean your God did it.