We need to poll this on a future thread so we can get a break-down on where the creo-Freepers fall.
We have not found evidence of design.
Yet all I see is design, i.e. program source code, function and procedure code, data arrays, replication code, etc. But I write software for a living, so that is a strong bias in how I see the world.
Science is concerned with the observable.
Like macro evolution.
You have evidence that the earth's magnetic field strength increased during the polarity fluctuations?
..that predisposes some people to both go into engineering and believe in a suopernatural designer.
Perhaps. This is not something I'd chose to try to find out. It would be interesting to see the percentages of graduates that belief in evolution break down among physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers and mathematicians. I'd wager the mathematicians are the least accepting of evolution as fact.
You seriously cannot make the analogy between SETI and evolution? Do you believe the very first life form on earth had complexity? Did this life form possess the ability to reproduce/replicate itself? Now, if it could, would this not imply some complexity existed in life at it's very earliest form, at it's inception? If a quirk of luck, a convergence of natural phenomenon, or whatever it was that created this first life form on earth occurred, the fact therefore remains that this entity of life was at least complex enough to reproduce and/or replicate itself.
Whatever the unknown event(s) in earth's pre-history that allowed life to come into being or to create life itself were, I'm sure you'll agree that the cause was natural. Therefore, if the first life has a natural causation, and this life form has the ability to reproduce and replicate itself, or at a very minimum the ability to consume energy with which to sustain itself long enough for it to develop the ability to reproduce itself. One must conclude that purely natural events created life. Since this life arose on earth somewhere as the result of natural causes, it's fair to say that purely natural systems in the universe can give rise to initial complexity. Similarly as you suggest, this life-form evoles and acquires more complexity as it evoles.
Therefore, one cannot assume that an ordered signal from outspace automatically has an intelligent cause when at the same time, more complex minimal life on earth came from purely natural causes. It could well be that an organized signal from a point in space came about from some unique (or not) set of events that are purely natural. Therefore, if evolution is true, no scientist can turn around and tell me that organized signals from outer space are necessarily an indication of intelligent life, since for life forms, we believe otherwise.
Let me ask you this, at a minimum, what complexity existed in the first life-form that Darwin says we all came from? Did this first life form possess any DNA? What capabilities/functions did this first life form possess? Please spare me the abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with evolution, because non-creation based evolution depends entirely upon this event first occurring.
I'm sure there are some old earth creationists, but they don't seem to be as interested in arguing, probably because they accept most of the evidence that evolutionists do but take on faith that these events happened by some sort of serial creation. Young earth creationists absolutely reject all of the evidence.
You have evidence that the earth's magnetic field strength increased during the polarity fluctuations?
It appears to have remained at the same level for quite a bit of geological time. It sometimes drops suddenly before recovering, and sometimes these drops are followed by a reversal. It's generally accepted that the magnetic field is driven by a geodynamo and thus will not decay for quite some time.
You seriously cannot make the analogy between SETI and evolution?
No, you said that they were analogous, I said they were not.
Therefore, one cannot assume that an ordered signal from outspace automatically has an intelligent cause when at the same time, more complex minimal life on earth came from purely natural causes.
I was with you until this point. As I said before, evolution is a process in which complexity is built by descent with modification and natural selection among various phenotypes. Can you propose a mechanical method of generating a complex electromagnetic signal by iterative modification of a simpler signal with some sort of selection? I can't think of one.
Therefore, if evolution is true, no scientist can turn around and tell me that organized signals from outer space are necessarily an indication of intelligent life, since for life forms, we believe otherwise.
Again, as I said, we would assume initially a signal had a nonbiological source and rule out these possibilities first, and even then many people (such as myself) would remain skeptical.
I think you are placing too much importance on SETI and misreading the general attitude towards it. I tend to think it's an exercise in futility.
Let me ask you this, at a minimum, what complexity existed in the first life-form that Darwin says we all came from?
Well, Darwin didn't suppose much about it since he didn't even know what DNA was. He had a "warm pond" hypothesis, but realized science hadn't reached the point where he could actually make any progress in determining that.
Did this first life form possess any DNA?
Where are you drawing the line calling it "life"? A lot depends on how you define that.
The last common ancestor contained DNA.
What capabilities/functions did this first life form possess?
Depends on when you happened to look at it. Initially probably copying RNA, probably then synthesizing peptides, later DNA, much later synthesizing lipids. Since we weren't there, we don't know the details.
Please spare me the abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
It doesn't, but I'm willing to humor you because abiogenesis interests me. :-D
It has everything to do with evolution, because non-creation based evolution depends entirely upon this event first occurring.
Once again, we're talking about two different things. Evolution postulates the existence of an initial organism and then explains what happens from there on out. Before the first organism we have chemistry that eventually becomes chemistry with selection and at some point the evolution of early lifeforms.
Do not forget that some evolutionists do think that there is a God who started the ball rolling.