I do agree that the universe is designed, and that the complexity is just one piece of evidence for that.
And although naturalism cannot describe everything does not mean it has to be wrong. But a lot of what it tries to explain is wrong. As for God being a christian God, many stereotypes arise when you put the word 'christian' on it. Although the true 'christian' is very different from what the bible says and what the great majority of people, even professed christian's say.
And true I am no molecular biologist, but does that mean I cannot have any possible education on the subject? All because I did not make my car (hmmm or did it just happen to be in my driveway.
) I can still change the oil, tires, and other things. And I may not be able to overhaul the engine like you may with molecular biology, I can make some sense out of it. I can think and reason after all.
But when you try to refute my claims of creation, you do it with the claim of evolution, which has proven to be not only impossible to test, but relies on those conclusions to make more theories and hypothesis! Whenever I ask questions that you cant answer the response I get is that science cant answer that yet. Which is fine, I understand that science does not have all the answers. But in my opinion, evolution has been a very poor answer for a tough question. For ie... Since you are a molecular biologist I'm sure you know this. Back in 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through a 'primitive atmosphere', trying to produce amino acids. he was able to get 4 of the 20. Then years later i do not know when, but it was tried again, but still fell short of the 20 needed, although I dont know how many they made. But what is very intresting is that Miller assumed that earth's primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions." Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by another scientist named Hitching: "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."
But even if those 20 acids were produced and floated down into the oceans, Does not water favor breaking down molecules(depolymerization) not the forming of larger ones?
There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Aren't there over 100 amino acids, but only like 20 are needed for life's proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes. Some of the molecules are 'right-handed' and others are 'left-handed.' Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed, or somthing similar. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life's proteins, all are left-handed!
Sorry this is so long but just one more thing, please be patient with me!
What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones, no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup? Im sure you'd agree that the proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. Even the most basic ones. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10to the 113th (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10to the 50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10to the 113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!
And we could go on and on! And this is all about just the start, not to even mention all the next steps that must take place.
You said
"I (and others) have refuted each of your claims to the validity of the anthropic principle. Please check back offer a counter to the refutations or offer new claims. Otherwise, I will not appreciate you bringing up the anthropic principle in the future. Furthermore, you have repeatedly claimed that complexity implies (=>) design. This has also been refuted without counter. Therefore, you should offer a counter or stop making the arguement."
May I please have the same?
My point is if a person does not want to believe in ID, that's fine, I respect that. But why propose something that cannot happen, even by scientific methods it cannot happen.
Very interesting discussion isn't it? I check in from time to time just to see the replies and opinions!