Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: spy66
Hehehe.... no-one is forcing you to be saved against Your will. Neither is anyone forcing you to read and reply to topics like this. That is all on you.

Nobody is forcing you either and nobody was asking whereislogic for their pitty.

There is not doubt in my mind that you will have Your whish granted. So dont be worried, the little book mentions that specifically as well.

You have an opinion, great, I have one to.

The little book also mentions that many of you will regret being ignorant after. But i am sure you wont be one of them?

No, I won't. I would try to explain it but MyHappyDogShiner makes a good point.

a reply to: daskakik

Nobody is forcing you either and nobody was asking whereislogic for their pitty.

Logic is a very personal thing. Logic is something that one have to Challenge all the time. It takes time and effort to get to the bottom of Things. I hardly think you have made much effort to Challenge the truth.

originally posted by: spy66
Logic is a very personal thing. Logic is something that one have to Challenge all the time. It takes time and effort to get to the bottom of Things. I hardly think you have made much effort to Challenge the truth.

Another opinion and you might be right but then again you will never know.

That doesn't change the fact that nobody is forcing you to participate in these types of threads and whereislogic's pitty, to me, comes off as smug and condescending and he keep it for all I care.

a reply to: Barcs
as usual, more twisting of what I said into your preferred straw man arguments, everything you say is basically what you want others to hear or think that I'm talking about. We've played the same game numerous times already and you are fully aware of what you're doing. You've never responded to anything I said unless you could cherry-pick and then fit it into your straw men arguments and misrepresentations of a term I'm not even fond of and therefore do not bring it up in the same manner as a Michael Behe (ID, Intelligent Design), that doesn't mean Michael Behe can't say anything useful about this topic, you can't even acknowledge or respond to that, cause it's not in your playbook. Plus you don't want people thinking about it.

A possible and appropiate short definition for design:

"the purposeful arrangement of parts..." (from the freedictionary)

The longer more detailed one is in the video. Are we gonna play or capitalize on the ambiguity of language regarding the word "purposeful" now? As per the usual play patterns? Or just talk past it again, possibly even bringing up complexity again or pretend I suggested "that cell complexity has nothing to do with Behe's position or ID"? To continue your debate about "complexity" and point to anything you may call complex but you already know is an effect of the laws of nature? So you can conflate complexity with design and pretend the argument is that complex things are always designed? Described in the Expelled documentary as the misrepresentation of ID as, 'oh it looks so complex, therefore God did it' (it was designed, also described as "life is too complex...", he doesn't quite finish it in the video I shared). Cause even though you haven't spelled it out like that in your last few comments, that is the gist of your commentary and the thinking patterns you're triggering in those conditioned with that straw man argument and misrepresentation of what those who refer to themselves as ID-proponents are saying or arguing; and it's dodging what I'm saying or bringing up, seeing that I never even brought up or used the words complex(ity) before you kept on going on about it so you could play the game described above and below (including leading thoughts of others down another track, a distraction).

And then you pretend that if anyone like me objects to your misrepresenation and straw man then they must be saying "that cell complexity has nothing to do with Behe's position or ID". All* or nothing? (* = "all" as in the way you keep phrasing it, before you twist that one again) Those are not the only 2 logical pathways of thinking available and both are wrong. But enjoy those boxes you're creating for people. And just bringing up something Michael Behe has said doesn't mean I have to hold the exact same position as Michael Behe or "believe in ID" (as ID is argued and proposed or described by people like Michael Behe; Stephen Meyer even calls it a hypothesis, I do not agree with the manner in which ID-proponents talk about this subject, I agree with Newton, which is similar, but he doesn't use the terminology "intelligent design", which is unnecessarily redundant in my view, which in turn doesn't mean that even though the term is redundant, it can't still be correct, but I'm not going to start a debate about ID, I have my own conclusions which I already shared and articulated in my own way and that doesn't mean I can't refer to Michael Behe regarding something specific he says about the subjects of "design", "biomolecular machines" and similar subjects), so why even go there and make it about that (ID and Michael Behe's entire position, cherrypicking that which you know people's minds have been misled about rather than responding to what I was pointing towards for which I gave the timeframes and if the word "complexity" is used at all in those timeframes, it is as a sidenote, not the main point; he might not even use the term ID either in those timeframes)?

I think you've also seen me point out some caveats regarding the term "irreducible complexity" in another thread, but I might be mistaken about that. I certainly mentioned it in another thread (the one with "axiom" in the title I think).

Here's what I said when I shared the video with Michael Behe (without using the term "ID" or "Intelligent Design" anywhere in my comment):

One of the reasons I keep sharing both the video with Newton using inductive reasoning as well as the video with Michael Behe where he explains how inductive reasoning works in a bit more detail than what I quoted before about it.
From:
5:00 - 13:22
26:50 - 39:30

Other than that, I can't quickly see where I might have mentioned ID until after your responses to that video (of course longer ago in other threads I may mention it in a certain way, usually with caveats such as I've given about redundancy, maybe even this thread longer ago). But you don't want to talk about the value of inductive reasoning or what Michael Behe says about that subject ignoring any of the usual triggerwords and terms "(irreducible) complexity", "random", "information", etc. All the words people like you like to argue endlessly about without gaining any understanding of words that used to be understood quite well before they became part of this debate; and required no further clarification, exact definitions that one can play around with by nitpicking and twisting, etc. in sensible conversations between people.

A design requires the process of designing by a designer or designers which in turn requires sufficient intelligence for that particular design. This level of intelligence is directly related to the sophistication and efficiency of the design and the level of technological advancement of the designer or designers. Hence the term intelligent design is redundant, if intelligence wasn't involved in the way I just described it, it was not designed and the word "design" does not apply (and would be misleading or intentionally deceptive to use if you don't believe the process of designing was involved the way I described it). That's why I try to avoid using the term ID as much as possible unless responding to someone or in a sentence such as this one.

edit above: "But you don't want to talk about the value of inductive reasoning or what Michael Behe says about that subject ignoring for a change any of the usual triggerwords and terms "(irreducible) complexity", "random", "information", etc."

Below are 2 videos from someone I also don't fully agree with everything he says in the video or the way he phrases it (especially when it comes to theology), but that doesn't mean he can't bring up some interesting points that a person may be thinking about after reading my usage of the phrase "sophistication and efficiency of the design" (and just in case someone is thinking about responding to that specifically).


Biomolecular machinery and information processing in living cells...it works! B*tchers (* = o) ...who are capable of so much more ( I hope I've given enough indications now that I don't like insulting people unlike certain other individuals using a similar phrase as a joke).

originally posted by: whereislogic
"But you don't want to talk about the value of inductive reasoning

Probably because that is what goes into formulating a hypotheses. If that is as far as you have gotten then you don't have anything to really talk about, proofwise.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's the end of a very long day for me, so I'll try to be brief for now.

You have me all wrong, brother. By complexity, I'm not saying you guys believe "Oh gee, it's so super complex, so god did it!" I'm saying that what you call "biomolecular machines", I call complexity. Unless you are suggesting that biomolecular machines are simple, it fits the bill. I don't get the beef over my use of the term, it's a waste of space and distracts from the original argument. The bottom line is that "biomolecular machines" do not prove design. Meyer interprets it that way, but again, it's an interesting hypothesis but it is lacking in hard evidence as there is nothing to compare it to in regards to non human designs.

And I've seen that cell animation before. That's not what they really look like. This is right in the description on youtube:

We tried to illustrate how molecular machines interact each other in the central dogma by giving "Japanese robot-anime" style representation to the molecules. By using this approach, people (especially kids) can easily distinguish between those molecules and understand how they function in our body.

Sorry, they don't really look like anime style robots. This is why I struggle to take your position seriously. I've seen many of those videos before, but i'll review them to refresh my memory at some point tomorrow when normal life returns.

a reply to: Barcs
In your attempt to cover up or excuse your use of your typical straw man argument you present yet another one and twist again my attempt to close that door for you before you open it. No I am not suggesting biomolecular machines are simple and it's not important (regarding my commentary and this conversation).

Your issue with the video made by Japanese scientists is again a non-issue, those who actually study or research this subject would know how much more accurate that video displays the machines in question (than some of the other videos out there or vague textbook pictures without showing the machines in action, which is a lot more telling or instructive than pictures with a wall of text describing functions, quicker and easier to learn too with moving animations). Not that you can't see they are machines from the other videos with at least a little bit of detail, but it's telling you have nothing to say about the videos made by evolutionists about this subject that simply use inaccurate blobs, circles (and like Kenneth Miller, even squares and rectangles to represent highly specifically shaped proteins, made to fit other proteins and protein complexes when they are suggesting that nature produced these machines without any intelligent guidance or input, without foresight or planning, without purpose and will and attempting to make people overlook why both the shape and the function of these machines do demonstrate these things were involved by intentionally not showing the details or how they operate within the cell with those details that make it more obvious that they are machines and that the earlier things I mentioned therefore had to be involved, if one is using logic to reason on this rather than wishful thinking, inductive reasoning and accepting the meaning of language as it has been used for centuries to be more exact; a shorter description more easily twisted by someone like you would be 'making them look more simple to facilitate the philosophy that they can be produced by natural means, i.e. caused by the laws of nature', but then someone can play the game of guiding a conversation towards a 'simple vs complex' debate, which is the real distraction still being played here, but not by me, I'm just stupidly responding and attempting to demonstrate how people's thoughts are led into a self-destructive vicious circle of erronuous illogical ways of thinking and fruitless debate; the videos are more interesting and probably more useful than my futile attempts at preventing people from going around in circles for a gazillion rounds of back and forth commentary without actually learning a thing about life and the machines it is made up of and where they might have come from or what may have caused them to come into existence).

But you're dependent on people staying ignorant about the accurate details shown in that video particularly well, that's the real reason you don't like the robot-style. Luckily these Japanese scientists were not as biased and I shared other videos with different styled animations of realities showing the same fact of the existence of interdependent biomolecular machinery (seeing that it's too small to show directly). Try to distract people from that fact by calling it "complexity" as much as you want (even though that wasn't the only part of your argumentation regarding that word, you used it, or were planning to use it depending on my responses for the purpose I described earlier; you're very predictable even your attempts at excusing yourself and pretending you weren't doing what I described).

You're trying to cover up what you are constantly doing (twisting logic, twisting what someone else said, twisting language and people's understanding of it, and more twisting and turning and dancing around the issues that people should be thinking about). And then suddenly you pretend I'm wasting space or distracting from the original argument for saying something about this behaviour? Or that's what you want other readers to think again. The beef over your usage of the term I described in short as using a straw man argument, and since you like to continue using this straw man argument, you won't admit that it is a straw man argument and you're even backing of your earlier statements about it pretending it was just about you referring to "biomolecular machines" as "complexity" (which is vague, not everything that is complex is a machine, so only someone trying to confuse people about that would do that; and the word "complex" or "complexity" is ideal for such twisting games, since it can be considered in the eye of the beholder whether a person considers something to be complex or simple or somewhere vaguely in between, it's much easier to start a useless fruitless debate about, the types of debates the bible warns about).

a reply to: whereislogic

That post was comprised of a whole lot of words but says nothing at all. But then again I don't think anyone expected you to deviate from your pattern so well done, bravo and kudos to you.

a reply to: peter vlar
I've already said everything important earlier. Others prefer talking about their straw man arguments and twists cause they've got nothing of use to say about what I'm really saying or pointing towards (the main points, not my responses and exposure of the twisting behaviour).

Other than that I have to disagree with you and consider my previous comment still of more use than yours just now that may consist of few words, yet lacks any beneficial teaching.

2 Timothy 4:2-4:

Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times; reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching. 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the beneficial teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.
* = Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”

3:13:

But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.

2:23-26:

Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. 24 For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle* toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. Perhaps God may give them repentance* [Or “a change of mind.”] leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will.
1st * = Or “tactful.”

1 Peter 3:15:

But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.

Sometimes it can be hard to recognize the line between foolish and ignorant debates and making a defense before everyone who demands a reason for why I think God exists and why he will do away with death, sickness, wickedness, evil and ultimately the Devil spoken of in 2 Timothy 4:26 (and thus also that deception and darkness fogging or clouding people's minds). The last part of 1 Peter 3:15 can sometimes even be trickier when determining the line and motivations of someone asking questions or responding in a conversation or chat or whatever it's called on the internet. The whole situation becomes more complex (which doesn't necessarily mean it was designed ) when there are more than 2 people talking or reading the comments.

Regarding the phrase "snare of the Devil" I have to point out that there's a relation between the following 3 videos I already shared earlier (perhaps in this thread as well, but then I didn't specify that phrase), that relation being (Pagan) religious philosophies/ideas and myths/false stories mentioned at various places in the bible including 2 Timothy 4:4 I quoted earlier):


There's a 2nd part as well to the last video with quite a crucial ending regarding a Trinitarian view of reality (again, Pagan religious philosophy, part of the Devil's snare). But since I shared it earlier (I think in this thread as well) I'll leave it like that. Plus some of it is also mentioned in the video above at 8:25 and if you can stomach (see 2 Timothy 4:3; 'do not put up with') watching a whole minute of that video up till about 9:30, then you will come across another mention of the words "simple" and "complex" which relates to some of the things I mentioned in my commentary to Barcs regarding the purpose of his usage of the various straw man arguments, twists and distractions I responded to. Including what I said about the purpose of videos that don't show certain details that they don't want people thinking about when they want them to think something is "simple" or when they want people to think something is going from "simple" to "complex" by some natural* process (* = caused by the laws of nature alone). Such as Kenneth Miller's video with his response to the topic of "irreducible complexity" which is the primary video I was thinking about when I said something to Barcs about that (I remember hexagons now, I said circles and squares but that's because I was also referring to similar vague undetailed videos; something a person might explain or excuse with keeping things simple but which is not the case with Kenneth Miller's videos, his motivation is different).
Perhaps this video will help with following what I'm talking about, it has both Kenneth Miller's argument and Michael Behe's response to it (and as a bonus I haven't shared it earlier). Other than watching the picture with the hexagons to get my points about this subject you can skip straight to 6:24 (cause all you get to hear before that are straw man fallacies about Behe's usage of the term "irreducible complexity", which I have to admit, is quite conducive for that, especially when taken out of the context that Behe used it in his book and misrepresenting it, but that is part of what a straw man fallacy does, so perhaps I'm being redundant now):

Just in case someone is going to listen to the straw man fallacies followed by fancy storytelling at the start of the video above, one example is the phrase "Parts Useless on Their Own." below the heading "DESIGN:" in the picture with the hexagons, that would be a straw man fallacy, a misrepresentation of the conclusion of design and what Michael Behe said or wrote about the subject for example. The conclusion that biomolecular machines made up of interdependent parts and interdependent on eachother for their overall function within a living cell as well were designed (which a person may sum up as "DESIGN:" in such a comparison with "EVOLUTION:") does not include an argument that the parts of these machines are or have to be completely useless on their own. But note that Kenneth Miller won't even draw people's attention towards the fact that a type 3 secretion system actually is pretty useless on its own (without an eukaryotic organism to inject anything into it, or, since they are found in bacteria, all the necessary components and machines that make up those bacteria that produce these type 3 secretion systems and maintain them from being destroyed by the environment, otherwise they probably won't exist for long enough to do anything, let alone inject and secrete proteins into a eukaryotic organism, proteins that in turn are required for the type 3 secretion system to be useful or have a function).

You can find Kenneth Miller's full video supposedly debunking irreducible complexity on youtube as well but it's not worth sharing unless you doubt the things I mentioned above which you can also notice happening in the video above (the use of straw man fallacies and which specific ones are used along with a lot of twisting and warping both language and logic, and even more storytelling based on wishful speculations, wishful thinking).

originally posted by: whereislogic
Sometimes it can be hard to recognize the line between foolish and ignorant debates and making a defense before everyone who demands a reason for why I think God exists and why he will do away with death, sickness, wickedness, evil and ultimately the Devil

Nobody really cares why you believe. I think they are, as I am, wondering why you think your reasons would sway their own conclusions.

a reply to: daskakik
I guess you didn't notice my lack of thinking that then in my commentary on ATS (in which I often quote or refer to 2 Timothy 4:3,4 which predicts the exact opposite for a particular time period and for a particular type of people) as well as my reasons for still making comments on ATS in spite of the motivation you're emphasizing regarding me (possibly as my main or only motivation, allthough you didn't spell out anything cause no one is around constantly trying to twist what you're saying, which would save having to spell out a lot of things, including what I'm saying here), at least regarding the majority here (my lack of thinking what you said at the end).

Still, in spite of whether or not that's my main motivation, I'd still consider it a beneficial thing if even 1 person thinks of some other possibilities or ways of thinking about these subjects because of my commentary. May it lead to even better more accurate knowledge about realities/facts that matter the most regarding their futures.

My lack of thinking what you said earlier also shines through quite well when I said (just 2 comments ago, the first comment you were responding to):

I'm just stupidly responding and attempting to demonstrate how people's thoughts are led into a self-destructive vicious circle of erronuous illogical ways of thinking and fruitless debate; the videos are more interesting and probably more useful than my futile attempts at preventing people from going around in circles for a gazillion rounds of back and forth commentary without actually learning a thing about life and the machines it is made up of and where they might have come from or what may have caused them to come into existence...

And no, I didn't use the word "attempts" to indicate that that was my only and/or main motivation for making comments. Calling them futile was actually meant to indicate I have other motivations as well (i'm not going to think or talk about priorities right now).
The "stupidly" is referring to me becoming aware that I'm stupidly falling for or getting suckered into such a fruitless debate and reminding both myself and others here there are more useful things to educate yourself with regarding these subjects. I hope the latest video has some positive or beneficial effects as well, allthough I expect it to be rare (but not impossible if given enough time).

originally posted by: whereislogic
Still, in spite of whether or not that's my main motivation, I'd still consider it a beneficial thing if even 1 person thinks of some other possibilities or ways of thinking about these subjects because of my commentary.

If that 1 person comes upon this thread they will probably get it way back in the thread. What you are doing here is trying to convince those, other than that 1 person, that they are wrong. You are wasting your time there.

a reply to: peppycat
God I think always was and always will be just like time and yes it appears circular to me too.

originally posted by: Onthebit
a reply to: peppycat
God I think always was and always will be just like time and yes it appears circular to me too.

The universe always was and always will be. No fairy tale required.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Barcs
In your attempt to cover up or excuse your use of your typical straw man argument you present yet another one and twist again my attempt to close that door for you before you open it. No I am not suggesting biomolecular machines are simple and it's not important (regarding my commentary and this conversation).

Strange, I quite distinctly remember you deviating from my original counterpoints, over one single term that I used in them. You then focused your main argument against it. Please stop accusing me of straw mans. I have not done that once, and you are using that as a red herring to avoid addressing many of my main points.

Your issue with the video made by Japanese scientists is again a non-issue, those who actually study or research this subject would know how much more accurate that video displays the machines in question (than some of the other videos out there or vague textbook pictures without showing the machines in action, which is a lot more telling or instructive than pictures with a wall of text describing functions, quicker and easier to learn too with moving animations).

No, it's a big issue, because you didn't explain the video with so much as a single sentence. You relied on people just clicking it and going, "Wow! They really do look like machines!" I am clearing up your deceptive propaganda so that others aren't fooled by it. That was a video used to teach young children and they use robot animations similar to cartoons because anime is very popular over there and the kids can relate to that. The robot animations are purely metaphorical.

Sure, it's good for kids, and the concepts they talk about are correct, but they don't actually look like space ships and robots as the video portrays. Post a REAL video of the machines inside of DNA, not some animated fabrication made for children, and then we'll talk.

The beef over your usage of the term I described in short as using a straw man argument, and since you like to continue using this straw man argument, you won't admit that it is a straw man argument and you're even backing of your earlier statements about it pretending it was just about you referring to "biomolecular machines" as "complexity" (which is vague, not everything that is complex is a machine, so only someone trying to confuse people about that would do that; and the word "complex" or "complexity" is ideal for such twisting games, since it can be considered in the eye of the beholder whether a person considers something to be complex or simple or somewhere vaguely in between, it's much easier to start a useless fruitless debate about, the types of debates the bible warns about).

I have not used a single straw man. In fact YOU are the one who is trying to tell me what I MEANT by using the term "complexity". You are isolating one single word out of a long argument and putting words in my mouth based on that. For example, I never said the "it's so complex, so it was created" argument, not once, nor did I say that is what you believed. I also never said that everything that is complex is a machine. I said that Behe and Meyer are appealing to the complicated intricate features of the cell to assume design. Your rant about this is unnecessary.

It's also funny that you keep using the term "machine", when a machine is pretty much defined as being created by humans with individual interchangeable parts. Machine is your interpretation. It is not an actual machine any more than the brain or the stomach is a machine. It is yet another term you use as a metaphor to deceptively claim that life has been designed. Like Meyer and others,you are using the word machine as a metaphor.

Is there proof that DNA was created? Is there proof that it couldn't have arisen naturally? No there is not. That is the simple bottom line here regardless of the fact that you ignore this point every time it's brought up and instead try to focus the argument on me and put words in my mouth. It's hilarious how you are doing everything that you accuse me of doing. It seems to be the latest fad in creationist arguments. Since you guys argue constantly with fallacies, it becomes the cool thing to do to accuse our side of fallacies even when they don't apply. Most of us see right through that tactic. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I'll say it again, it's possible that DNA was designed purposely. It's also possible that it arose naturally over time. We really don't know the answer to that question yet. I'm sure we'll eventually find out. I just don't see why folks have to adamantly take absolutist positions on the matter and assert one way or the other as fact or "logical conclusion" The only logical conclusion thus far is that more research needs to be done.

a reply to: Barcs
I already said you didn't spell it out that way (the way I quoted and paraphrased it from the video) but that it was a way of thinking that you were following and are promoting about this subject. Next to that there are many different variations to express the same way of thinking and you did conflate "complexity" with "design" and "biomolecular machines", which is part of this particular straw man argument that you didn't spell out the way I spelled it out for clarity when pointing to a video where an example of 1 variation of that straw man argument is used and is the one you keep repeating now rather than repeating your own attempts at making people think according to this straw man argument (which doesn't require a person using the word "complexity", what you did with the pictures of patterns in rock formations and calling it designed is thinking along the same line as this straw man argument and warping people's understanding of language and logic, and there are more examples of variations of this way of thinking in the video I shared with the debate; which again relates to the way you've been talking about it).

You're welcome to share a video about DNA>RNA>protein transcription and translation that you think is more accurate and detailed than the one you're dissing. Try to make sure they at least mention the machine that cuts or splices out the introns, mentions the poly-A tail and the prime cap in processed mRNA (for transportation and to prevent degredation) and accurately shows the shape and shape changes of RNA polymerase II as it does its transcription job.

This one for example has much less detail (zoomed out further), but at least it mentions the crucial interdependency of the folding machine in this whole process that all life is dependent on for its existence and survival (a machine highly sensative to mutations if you study the subject further and start thinking about gradual evolutionary processes supposedly developing these essential machines and those systems over multiple generations of 'pink unicorn' bacteria that can't live, replicate and reproduce even theoretically):

originally posted by: Barcs

I have not used a single straw man.

Machine is your interpretation. It is not an actual machine any more than the brain or the stomach is a machine.
Is there proof that DNA was created? Is there proof that it couldn't have arisen naturally? No there is not.

You have used straw man fallacies, and not just in this thread.
They are machines, as was discovered and published many decades ago by a variety of scientists studying them and can be accurately referred to as what the Encyclopaedia Britannica calls "established facts" and Isaac Newton calls "certain Truths" in my previous quotations about inductive reasoning.
There is conclusive proof/evidence that DNA was created originally (or initially, from the start). You twist it and then pretend to not understand it, then you promote that feigned misunderstanding to others in an attempt to really get people to misunderstand it.
A lack of evidence for your 'pink unicorn' in the form of a baseless claim that it could have arisen naturally (by natural causes, the laws of nature, and as you phrased it before about your rock formations, "nature can design things") now hidden by an attempt to shift the burden of proof with a question for proof that it couldn't have arisen naturally (supported by that conflation of rock formations with designs or machines), is sufficient reason for me to not take it seriously (except the effect it has on other people, which I take very seriously).

In contrast, that intelligent beings can design and create machinery (interdependent within a system of machinery or otherwise) is again an established fact that I have observed personally many times in my life. Oh, and btw, since you've subtly played that card as well, they don't just LOOK like machines, they also FUNCTION as machines. They are machines as is recognized and acknowledged by many scientists publishing about these machines with different backgrounds, theistic, atheistic, deistic (/pantheistic, everything is god/nature is god, god is not a personal being) or agnostic.

But nice try in making this about me and pretending it's just my interpretation so people can more easily dismiss it because they've already been nicely setup to not take anything I say seriously because of the many other twists of anything I say on here (combined with ad hominems towards either me or anyone in the videos from ID-proponents I might share).

Google: biomolecular machines
Give it a try...

Also checkout for example (link found above) the variations on the baseless claims (just-so storytelling) that 'nature did it' and "nature can design things" in the article below:

Careers in Nanobiotechnology: Biomolecular Machines | Science | AAAS:

However, nature has already spent millennia developing its own machines,...

Never seen the laws of nature alone develop (or design and create) a machine. Pointing to machinery that has been programmed and designed to self-assemble, replicate and reproduce is not providing evidence that it was the laws of nature that produced these capabilities that we have observed being produced* only by intelligent beings (* = as in initially, the input at the start required to get that self-assembly, replication and reproduction going initially). Notice the other game being played here as well, on the one hand Barcs makes the similar claim (variation) that 'nature can design things' which is phrased as "nature...developing its own machines" (avoiding acknowledging or spelling out that that requires design and creation otherwise they aren't machines or designs, the purposeful arrangement of parts) but then Barcs complains about me using the word "machines" as if that's not OK and they aren't really machines, it's just a metaphor (a discussion I've had earlier about the word "code" regarding DNA in the thread with "axiom", I got no logic or reason in response to my comments about that there either).

Make a choice man, you're either going with 'nature can design machines or other things' ("things" is pretty vague) or 'they aren't really machines, they just look like them and it's just a metaphor' (and then conveniently ignore they also function as machines and all the published articles in highly respected magazines claiming to present "science" that acknowledge clearly in the way they phrase things that they ARE machines, which is phrased as a statement of fact or a reality, something that IS the case; cause certain people recognize they can't deny or confuse people about everything, that would make the game a bit too obvious, as obvious as what Baldrick is doing in the video above).

originally posted by: whereislogic
Never seen the laws of nature alone develop (or design and create) a machine.

No one has ever seen that. Nobody has ever seen god do that either.

What's your point, that some people believe that so that makes it the same a religion?

You are playing lose with definitions. We can all believe things. For example, some people might believe their elected representatives will act in accordance with their best interests. It's a belief they might have but is it religous? Maybe, maybe not. Just because a little faith is put into something doesn't mean that everyone is taking it as gospel.

The one big difference that I see is that science is open to change. Faith in it is ad hoc. If someone takes it as anything else that is their call and their right. What difference does it make to you? Why does it seem to bother you so much?

I don't remember who it was in the thread with "axiom" in the title, but there was someone who acknowledged that DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms IS a code (the "IS" makes it a statement of fact, or an acknowledgement of a fact in this case) then at the end of his comment he starts nagging about metaphors and analogies again, as if it's a metaphor like Barcs was doing earlier regarding the word "machine". Again, make a choice people, stop talking in contradictions please, pick your flavor of denial or fantasy.

Either they are machines whose self-assembly capabilities are encoded into their DNA codes (genomes of living organisms, part of it, cause there's more involved and interdependent regarding these capabilities, just DNA or just RNA won't get you anywhere) or they're not (denial).

You're going to believe and promote your fantasy and myth that nature did it either way ("nature can design things"). The least you can do is not make your denial of the meaning of language and your warping or twisting of logic and people's ability to use reason on these subjects that obvious (for me, it's so 'in my face', there, you can't reason with us, "go away" is what someone just told me on youtube somewhere).