[ndt]

"The evidnece to support that claim is seen in 150 years worth of exploring the issue and coming up empty with an answer"

Are you claiming lack of evidence (which is utterly false) is evidence?

"Actually yeah it does, what it doesn’t put much effort into is how that origin was sparked."

Actually, no it doesn't.

"It’s actually a very good argument and one thta is used in science all the time to determine if objects that are discovered have a designer or not."

What scientific process are you referring too. The closest I can think of would be something like Seti and it's not complexity they are looking at but simplicity. Extreme complexity would be indistinguishable from static, an intelligent signal is generally simpler than the surrounding noise.

One could say that it is simplicity that is the hallmark of intelligence.

"What is your objective evidence that it could arise from random process?"

I don't recall bringing up The Origin of Life, that was the posters choice and I chose to oblige him.

[CottShop]

[[Are you claiming lack of evidence (which is utterly false) is evidence?]]

It is a strong indication- funny, you folk use indications all the tiem to make the case for evolution, yet when a strong indication is used to support the fact that something might be unreasonable, all of a sudden it’s not ‘precise enough’ or ‘scientific enough’?

[[Actually, no it doesn’t.]]

Yeah it does- it HAS to if it’s going ot argue everythign has a natural explanation- we’ve been rouind and round this merrygoround of symantics many many times- the ONLY evolution hypothesis that doesn’t have to explain the first ‘species’ forward are those who claim God or some entity supernaturally made completed species- Every other hypothesis relies on a completely natural explanation for the beginnings of life.

[[What scientific process are you referring too.]]

Plenty, scientific forensics, geology, medical etc. many fields look for design because design is an intergral part of their study to determine outcomes.

[CottShop]

[[”What is your objective evidence that it could arise from random process?”

I don’t recall bringing up The Origin of Life, that was the posters choice and I chose to oblige him.]]

Oh but you did bring it up by putting an onus on him that you yourself are unwilling to tackle. The evo model states that it is possible, yet offers no evidnece to show that it is- a simple statement of faith will suffice evidently, yet when it comes to opposing hypothesis that state that what we know from biology and mathematics, makes random processes moving a species higher and higher outside hteir own kinds, we’re immediately put to the task of having to prove it? I’ll answer for him, or in addition to him- Mathematics and biology are the the evidences that it is impossible. Biological investigations have shown quite clear that the only way for NEW infromation, which is needed to move a species beyond it’;s own KIND, if for lateral gene transference to transfere the needed new information from one species KIND to another dissimiliar KIND. The individual species specific gene codes are incapable of creating new organs and systems because hte instructions simply are not present, nor can any alterations create combinations of instructions that could produce non species specific organs or systems- We know it is a biological fact that species can lose organs, lose instructions, and can even, within species specific parameters to the instructions alter information already present, but nothing other than a literal lateral gene transference can introduce NEW non species specific organ/system instructions.

Not that I should have even bothered to respond to that question when your side ducks the same challenge, but there ya go.