I am just sharing you how we need to use real science in answering the question of origins.
The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations
How will you answer this scientific question in science or religion? “How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”? Will you answer, “The created X is complex or irreducibly complex and the un-created X is simple or reducibly complex?”. Or in Biology, a difference or dividing line between an intentionally made biological cell to non-intentional? Will you answer, “intentional is information-coded while the non-intentional is no-information code,”? Or in Cosmology, an intelligently designed Universe to non-intelligently designed Universe?
How can you differentiate a created X to an un-created X”
Not difficult. I would look at its structure and function and determine from experience with other forms whether it was naturally formed or not. Then we will need about a dozen or so other recognized and qualified scientists to make an independent set of observations. The consensus will make the tentative conclusion.
The same goes for all your questions.
Are you going to try and resurrect Behe’s bullshit on complexity? Unless you have something startlingly new to argue then all the old bs has already been refuted. And be careful with trying to use Dumbski’s information theory. We got some real math people here.
So, now it’s your turn. How can you differentiate a created X from an un-created X?
BTW, both your sources are self-serving non-scientific narcissism. I will not read them nor will I reference them. You want to present evidence? Bring it here. What do your cites say? Anything not already debunked decades ago?
The hawkster's advantage when it comes to intelligent design spiel, is that the human mind cannot properly conceive of timescales in the billions of years. Hell, we have problems conceiving of centuries.
That makes it easy to convince the rubes that scientists are wrong when they point to what evolution has achieved in billions of years.
It's like the Indian farmer and the rice grains doubling on the chess board - our brains jump to incorrect conclusions. Easy prey for the carney spiel.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
There is a perfectly adequate existing model, method, mechanism, process and procedure that explains the variety of life that has been found to exist or exist in the past.
There is ZERO evidence of any designer, much less any intelligent designer.
Until there is some evidence of any designer, in particular any evidence the designer has any intelligence, this whole thread is simply an example of the Christian Cult of Willful Ignorance Mental masturbation.
The guy who wrote this gibberish, that was copied and pasted from the links, claims to have published science books. Can you imagine whole books of this incoherent drivel? Then, try and imagine reading further than one page in a single volume without your brain exploding...
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq