Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you disagree that the evidence that you accept actually builds a strong case for intelligent intervention?

I disagree. It certainly does not.

Look it up, so you can't tell me?
No, because I do not know. I do know that there are molecules in the cell wall not coded for in the DNA. It is, however, irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes I did. Did you know the following?
No, I haven't studied his work, nor particularly wish to.

This builds a strong case for creation by the way.
No, it doesn't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. It certainly does not.

[b]Look it up, so you can't tell me?
No, because I do not know. I do know that there are molecules in the cell wall not coded for in the DNA. It is, however, irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes I did. Did you know the following?
No, I haven't studied his work, nor particularly wish to.

This builds a strong case for creation by the way.
No, it doesn't.[/b]

I disagree. It certainly does not.

So the people in the lab were not using intelligence to create artificial life?

No, because I do not know. I do know that there are molecules in the cell wall not coded for in the DNA. It is, however, irrelevant to this discussion.

What about those molecules? What is your point?

No, I haven't studied his work, nor particularly wish to.

Obviously since you are not interested in any evidence which may even remotely point towards there being any form of intelligent intervention in the creation of life.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. If they were using intelligence in the lab to create artificial life then that does support the claim that the origin of life required some form of intelligent intervention.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So the people in the lab were not using intelligence to create artificial life?

Of course they were, but what does that have to do with what you asked and what I answered. At least try to make sense sometimes.

What about those molecules? What is your point?
It was merely a point of clarification. Go back and see the post where I brought it up.

Obviously since you are not interested in any evidence which may even remotely point towards there being any form of intelligent intervention in the creation of life.
I am interested in such evidence if it exists. I fail to see how his work would be relevant in any way.

Yes it does. If they were using intelligence in the lab to create artificial life then that does support the claim that the origin of life required some form of intelligent intervention.
No, it doesn't. Try and come up with a sensible argument.
If I used my intelligence to pour water out the window and make a small river, would that support the claim that all rivers required some form of intelligent intervention? Come on, use your brain sometimes!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course they were, but what does that have to do with what you asked and what I answered. At least try to make sense sometimes.

[b]What about those molecules? What is your point?
It was merely a point of clarification. Go back and see the post where I brought it up.

Obviously since you are not interested in any evidence which may even rem ...[text shortened]... at all rivers required some form of intelligent intervention? Come on, use your brain sometimes!

If I used my intelligence to pour water out the window and make a small river, would that support the claim that all rivers required some form of intelligent intervention? Come on, use your brain sometimes!

No one claimed that. It would support the claim that you CAN create a river using intelligent intervention.