I just told you. It seems arbitrary to me, but I am not an expert on molecular structures and related atomic theory. I find it arbitrary because it theorizes limits on what is not possible (natural occurrance of the described molecular structures), without showing why it is not possible.
The entire basis for the determination seems based on a subjective evaluation of the curent state of knowlege - we don't have a way to explain this as a natural phenomenon so it is reasonable to assume that there isn't one.
The arguments that follow from that assumption seem reasonable if you accept the assumptions, but the basis on which we're being asked to accept those assumptions seems entirely subjective.
==The entire basis for the determination seems based on a subjective evaluation of the curent state of knowlege - we don’t have a way to explain this as a natural phenomenon so it is reasonable to assume that there isn’t one.
Williams is going much further than that. Not only is he claiming that life’s irreducible structure cannot be reduced to naturalistic explanations, but further that intelligent design is the ONLY acceptable historical inference with respect to the laws of cause and effect. Can you think of any naturalistic/neo-Darwinian historical inferences that can compete with intelligent design with respect to Williams argument?
[[The entire basis for the determination seems based on a subjective evaluation of the curent state of knowlege - we don’t have a way to explain this as a natural phenomenon so it is reasonable to assume that there isn’t one.]]
You are tryign to downmplay the seriousness of what was discussed- The article does hsow hwy, and it is not only reasonable to conclude that nature isn’t capable, but it is also unreasonable to keep thinking nature could in light of htis added argument agaisnt naturalistic methods.
The reason why nature isn’t capable is because hte chemical compnents that supposedly started life are not in themselves endowed with the information necessary to keep creatign more andm ore ifnromation until the end results is arrived and that the end informaiton could not have happened naturalistically because it had no higher informaiton to draw from durign hte supposed stepwise process of attaining the end ‘mega-informaiton’.