Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

Well this is the thing -the fingers were designed and the programme for the finger design is present in the organism -an extra copy of what already exists does not prove that the genetic instructions for fingers produced themselves by natural causes.

Everything which has a beginning has a cause
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
God, the intelligent creator or whatever you would prefer is by definition the uncreated creator of the universe. He has no beginning and thus no cause. So to ask the question "who created God" is illogical.The universe cannot be self-caused because it is self-evident that things that have a beginning have a cause.The universe cannot be self-caused because nothing can create itself.
God, the intelligent creator is outside of time so he has no beginning and thus no cause.

Theoretically maybe but we need more than theory to constitute scientific proof. Supposition upon supposition is what has put evolution into the 'fact' section of our lives - that is not/should not be science.We need direct evidence to turn theories into fact.

Unsupported? Evidence-free? We have living things and two possibilities -they created themselves OR they were created.
If they were created then their creator might also have been created and so on ad infinitum OR their creator created mass and time as well as the creations.
Evolutionists apparently believe that living things created themselves by chance, natural selection and lots of time but that is not the only game in town -it is the only one they seem to think it is reasonable to play.Where is your evidence minus the philisophical trimmings? The fossils, no; evidence for increased genetic information, no. Perhaps you overestimate your evidence or maybe it's just the philosophy you prefer and evidence is really not that important when you've already decided the cause.

How about you tell me all the things you know of that have a beginning but no cause? It seems that most every evolutionist has to keep this one in his personal arsenal for when he has no further argument and is getting flustered. It's like an ad hominem general purpose waste my time type of thing. Who are you trying to impress? Or are you saying that I don't know everything? When you personally do know everything then you should haul this one out - then it may have some relevance because the point you are obviously trying to make is that you, unlike me, are extremely clever and in a better position to posit the creation of everything from nothing than I am to posit the creation of everything from something.

But you made up your mind that material processes must have done it before looking at the evidence -just admit it. If you can believe that random material mutations and the selection of the best ones could create all the complexity of living things -then you do believe in magic.The magic is in believing that it is possible to get complex organization out of random mistakes -and don't forget old natural selection which cleverly chooses the best ones to put complex things together. You sure do love that word. No actually they seem to be familiar with their own little speciality -as for the rest of the evidence which they don't appear to be very familiar with, they are as good as laypersons as far as the big picture, the overall look of the evidence is concerned.
Halfwitted religious bigotry is a phrase designed to make people imagine that anyone who believes in God is a fool -how to win friends and influence people....And then of course how anyone who believes that nature did all its own creating is made of sterner stuff, facing reality in the eye boldly - give me a break. How awfully audacious of you -there you go boldly defiant as always.Staring the facts in the face -there is no God, live with it!
Maybe I know more than you think and, evolutionist to the core, you only imagine in your proud little heart that anyone that doesn't agree with you doesn't know anything.It's possible, think about it... There we go again, that little word you love so well...Who's deceiving who here???

No fantasy, just an observation about how evolutionists decide what's what based on no other options. No it isn't. If natural processes are unlikely to be able to do the job, imagining that they can without some sort of direction is akin to believing in magic. Most little specialties don't even need evolution at all. Some just throw in a little evolution related story at the end of their discoveries in order to go with the flow -but it's quite unnecessary. As for agreeing with it, dare they not? It wouldn't be good for funding, would it. Listen, all I know about you at this stage is that you're a radical fundamentalist evolutionist, you love to imagine that anyone who opposes your opinion is lying and you're very angry about something so it oozes out all over your writing.

That's strange, that's exactly what I think of the evolutionists' belief system. A fantasy to keep the truth at bay. People have always been running from God throughout history, only now they present what they're doing as the 'scientific' truth -it is philisophically inspired you know, from its roots right up to the present day.
The more you run from God, the more you cling to your belief system, enraged at the possibility of any other option. Not if it means believing something that flies in the face of logic. Organization -requires an organizer -where does the genetic code's information come from? It's not just a chemical composition you know.It requires sending a message and receiving it and then acting upon it -code....you know. Look around and ask everyone you know where their best evidence for evolution lies -it's usually in someone else's speciality. All the little just-so stories in the world won't make evolution true - I appreciate the wonderfully imaginative stuff that evolutionists come up with but I would really prefer the truth when it comes to science. No actually you've got it all quite wrong, that's another one of the evolutionary fairytales; it's the evolutionists that have access to all the tax payer's money. ID proponents have to find private funding if they want to do their research. If you don't go with the flow, you know.... Actually I answer to the things that you write and that's all I know about your opinions at this stage.

A few quotes that may make sense:"According to the Darwinian creation myth, intelligent adaptations within highly complex, functionally integrated systems just happen for no particular reason.This is the fundamental proposition that materialism in all its variants asks us to swallow. First articlated by the ancient Greek atomists, it is a bolus that has been gagging scientists and philosophers for more than two millenia."
Cicero spoke of it in 45 BC and Fred Hoyle updated Cicero's imagery in his famous analogy of a tornado passing through a junkyard and leaving a Boeing 747 in its wake.One cannot tinker at random with a functionally integrated system and expect to achieve beneficial results. To be viable, changes must be coordinated.
" The real problem Darwinists face is even given 15 billion years from the Big Bang, a heap of inert matter would not spontaneously organize itself into a functionally integrated system. Epic poems and Boeing 747's do not come into existance by themselves, no matter how much time is available -and neither do cells or even proteins.
If there is no intrinsic connection between the material constitution of a system and its function, then we can say with certainty that the organization must have been imposed on the system by an external agent. If on the other hand as naturalists we suppose that the system organized itself into a functionally integrated whole, then we must also posit some intrinsic connection between matter and function to act as a guiding principle.Either way, Darwinism has got it wrong. Invoking chance in a way that it does is tantamount to saying "here the laws of nature as we understand them are suspended.." It is no different from invoking miracles."
(James Barham -"Why I am not a Darwinist")Maybe the way he puts it explains better what I am trying to say.

Well at least they see the problems - they just don't always draw the same conclusions as us who likewise see the problems.

No that's true but 'outside intelligence' was nonetheless required to put the many non-flying parts into a functioning whole that could fly.The same with biology - the arrangement of the parts is not merely following physical laws - something from outside has to have designed what exists.To imagine that minature machines in every living cell just got together with no direction and just managed to integrate and coordinate with one another, is ludicrous to me. Perhaps there is another explanation apart from the only one that evolutionists are prepared to allow? (according to their philisophical restraints) Perhaps there is one that fits the evidence rather than being forced to fit. Except to suggest that you look carefully at what exists. Remove the blinkers and think how many machines come about with no plan and no intelligence.
What if you're just so used to thinking that there is no plan that you are utterly blinded to the obvious. The created things in all their complexity are the positive evidence for intelligent design.

No, a certain level of organization can come about without an organizer -that's where physical law comes in -simple equations. However when you're talking about a biological organism, the organization is not that simple -in fact if you had to organize it into an equation, the equation would not be simplifiable. Like a book that just says -"To be or not to be" over and over again, you could reduce it to a repeating formula, but one of Shakespeare's plays would not be reducible in that way. In fact the formula would be as long as the play. That's how you would know that intelligence not physical law had come into the picture. No it isn't, the chemical laws of the medium of DNA are purely chemical, but the organization of the parts is information superimposed on the system just like you can carry an intelligent message on a piece of paper using pen and ink,; the same message can be carried on a CD or on a hard drive. The chemical properties of the medium of transfer exist but the chemical properties of pen and ink have no effect on the intelligent information superimposed on the medium. The information content of DNA has nothing to do with the chemical arrangement of the medium of transfer of the information. It's an old university tale that DNA is a purely chemical arrangement. Dean Kenyon wrote a book hypothesizing purely chemical law to explain DNA -it was used in Universities for 20 years. It's those sorts of books that get stuck in as urban legend. He withdrew from that position later on when he realized that 'chemical predestination' could not explain the information content of DNA.
A good book to read on information is Werner Gitt's "In the Beginning of Information" -of course evolutionists have 'refuted' his arguments but you should read it for yourself to decide whether they actually did or not. It's like going to a trial without reading the brief if you believe every 'refutation' tale of evolution.

No, I see the evidence of design and so I propose a designer. You on the other hand, see design and, constrained by an evolutionary philisophical predisposition, imagine that only material processes could possibly have caused these designs to come into being. You have no other options! Evolutionists wrote the designer out of the equation and then defined science accordingly -no God allowed, only what we can see under a microscope could possibly exist, no designer, no way. They think that reality relies on their definitions and constraints. They are the ones with faith. Faith that denies what is obvious to so many and substitutes whatever they can tolerate in the designer's place.
"The Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom..." You're not going to spot the designer, he won't be wandering in the shopping mall -but if you really want to, you can spot the design, it's really not that difficult. Try the bacterial flagellar motor for a start, with all its proteins and all its interrelated parts -they have to fit together, they have to work together, they have to be coded for in the DNA before the proteins get made and there has to be a message that gets those proteins put together in the correct working sequence.You have to really spin an elaborate evolutionary story to get all those perfectly shaped (for their job) proteins to write their own directions in the genome and throw themselves together by an accumulation of the best mutations or accidents that could have possibly happened.It's called 'the matrix' -you're living in the matrix if you can carry on believing all that stuff despite everything that points away from it with big red blinking signs saying "helloooooo". Physical processes are said to explain everything around us -according to main stream science and we all get indoctrinated into that belief from childhood on until we really can't see any possibility of design.You don't have to believe in the creator as a prerequisite for seeing the design. There is no physical law that can account for the complexity of life - mutations and natural selection don't even begin to get to the question of how life arrived and began to reproduce in order for mutations and natural selection to start working. A lot of things need to be there for reproduction to happen in the first place, you need to be able to convert energy somehow -without some kind of complex machinary, you can't do that, but you need it for reproduction. You need a plan and only then can mutation and natural selection begin to enter the equation but even they can't write the increase in organized information -they can just make mistakes and select the best mistakes, hardly a recipe for organized information. Especially the information required to go from our hypothetical single-celled ancestor to the human being no matter how much time you have.
Apart from that, in order for the information to get to the next generation, the mutation has to be specifically and fortuitously in the sex cell otherwise it isn't going anywhere much less to the next generation. All observations with philisophical assumptions attached, but not all observations. If you look at the fossil record, you won't see evolution unless the interpretation is forced on you.There's no gradual increase in complexity in the fossil record -that's an evolutionary fable.

Sorry, no broadband -it would take forever for me to watch this and then I would be asleep. Please explain.

No, you do have a philisophical predisposition -you consider that since you can't see the designer directly therefore there isn't one.Therefore the cause of everything has to do with physical law.
If you see a painting, you know there's a painter -you don't have to see him.If you believed that you had to see the painter before you would believe that he painted the painting, then according to your reasoning, you'd need to come up with a materialistic explanation for the painting's existance until such time as the painter presented himself to you. You don't have to see the painter to know that there is one. Just realize that if the creator is out of the picture, but he exists, then your wisdom is based on a faulty premise and your conclusions are irrational. In another way of putting it, if God exists then my conclusions are rational; if God doesn't exist, then your conclusions are rational.The thing is which one is true and can you afford to come to the debating table having excluded the one a priori. It's not that you can't believe that there might be a creator, usually it's because you don't want to.