The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: whereislogic

No one has presented a reasonable creationism hypothesis, so...

*shrug*

And I'm pretty positive no one would be willing to actually go out and test it, anyway. Faith is more forgiving than science.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

No one has presented a reasonable creationism hypothesis, so...

*shrug*

And I'm pretty positive no one would be willing to actually go out and test it, anyway. Faith is more forgiving than science.

For a (young earth) creationism story, go to the "6000 year old earth" thread and stop trying to conflate a myth with the logical correct/factual conclusion of design regarding the origin of life.

While you're at it, stop pretending abiogenesis by natural causation, i.e. 'nature did it' is a hypothesis (when this myth doesn't even qualify) and certain evolutionary philosophies are a "scientific theory" or "science" (when they aren't even proper hypotheses).

And stop pretending "science" is whatever gets published in your preferred magazines and databases where facts and myths are conveniently mixed up and conflated so much with technical jargon to beguile, that people can't see the forest for the trees anymore and then if they object pretend that they're denying "science" or "science" haters, or ignorant of "science", or just don't "understand". Just search the thread everyone for the word "understand" and see how people are using that word. I probably used it to, see if you can learn more from when I use the word (also on the links I shared in my very first comment here, regarding the words "wisdom" and "insight") than when certain others do when pointing fingers and then act all innocent when someone holds up a mirror to what they're doing.

Of course, this is all meant as an encouragement, of course you have some work to do to find out that the above I'm saying is true.

Step 1:

care about truth (and not just believe or think that you do)

Step 2:

think about a way to determin if someone talking to you or trying to tell you something cares about what is true/factual/absolute/certain or not (there are some easy ways to recognize if someone cares about that which is absolute, which lies at the very heart of the pursuit of knowledge, a familiarity with facts...there's more to that definition for knowledge)

Knowledge

a reply to: whereislogic

You have had this whole thread and a few others to put up or shut up. By now I've just accepted you have nothing. And that means I have nothing for you either.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

You have had this whole thread and a few others to put up or shut up. By now I've just accepted you have nothing. And that means I have nothing for you either.

Your denial of the conclusive evidence and pretending it's not there and conditioning other people with that idea isn't going to make it go away. Hey, I can't even edit or remove my comments anymore, including the one with the link to a playlist with a few rocks from the REAL mountain of evidence, not a house of cards (in the form of Pantheistic philosophy and mythology, well presented of course, with great techniques of convincing the biased hearer who wants their ears to be tickled).

Each of my "stop pretending" is referring also to "stop pretending to yourself", as an encouragement that is maybe a bit rough on the edges, pardon for that, but I don't think it would matter much if I could polish it up more and I'm not here to tickle peope's ears and tell them what they want to hear, I'm trying to speak the truth (and hope to be forgiven and corrected on any real inaccuracies, rather than perceived ones or having to defend my words and points that get twisted to people's liking, so they again have their ears tickled by hearing the straw men arguments that have been drilled into their minds).

a reply to: whereislogic

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Debate? Give me the time and the place. It's about time one of you (or all of you - doesn't matter to me), steps up to the plate and presents your evidence.

Come up with some stipulations of victory. What determines the winner? Voting from observers would be too biased, unless we got a group of undecided people (regarding evo or ID). Or is it simply a mental exercise?

You name the time and the place. I'll be there.

West end of the reflecting pool in Washington DC at noon would be regal enough. ATS forum on a weekend might be the most convenient though.

Well are you up to a debate or not? The other guy didn't answer so I'll take that as a no.

If you're not, just say so and we'll be done with it.

Thanks

spoiler alert: its a waste of your time.

Evolution debate

Another evolution debate

ANOTHER evolution debate

Yet another evolution debate

Wait, again? Seriously?

....*sigh*

this is an exercise of pride for some members, they derive satisfaction from frustrating you and others. now that i have posted the links here, i imagine we can just let the willing educate themselves on the matter. the rest will not be moved no matter what lengths you go to.

I present this thread in its full...glory?...as testament to the quote above. You can go ahead and have your last word, it means more to you than it does to me.

Ciao

a reply to: TzarChasm

Isaiah 5:20, turning things upside down and agreeing with vague implications about pride, possibly regarding those who care about truths/facts (metaphor: light) vs fiction/myths (metaphor: darkness; also deception, confusion and vagueness but those are not metaphors).

Pride is most definitely involved in the endless threads about this subject, the article I linked a couple of times goes a lot deeper into how it is involved though:

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

There isn't much in those linked debates that will help people "educate themselves on the matter" if they can't even properly process the information in the article above or my very first comment here (and those links). It's that dismissive atttitude towards the source that's in the way (described by 2 Timothy 4:3,4 as "do not put up with" "beneficial teaching"). Nicely expressed and nurtured by TerryDon79's commentary about it (nurtured in the minds of other readers, he's very experienced and clever in his timing, like a predator waiting to strike at the right moment. Probably shouldn't have mentioned that cause it sounds like it can be twisted again to discredit what I'm trying to warn everyone for once they get in really deep like I suspect he has done regarding certain things that I don't want to discuss in detail for fear of losing credibility, whatever was left after all the twists already. Like I'm unjustly attacking him or picking him out or something, but I have some good clues as to why I'm doing that and why he's quite different from certain other posters here, most of whom, are mostly just zealous regarding their beliefs in myths of Pantheistic origin).

originally posted by: flyingfish

Indeed.. but the numbers don't lie. It may take a generation but the creationist will go extinct unless they ironically... Evolve!

As if convincing someone of evolution is fruitful whatsoever? Let's say hypothetically it is true, and all life is a random, unintelligent meaningless charade... So what??? What does it even matter then? If anything, it'd be better for people to believe that there is some meaning to life and that there are meaningful consequences to their actions. Evolution insists on survival of the fittest and encourages people to do malignant, selfish acts on a large scale without blinking an eye.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are."

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

originally posted by: neoholographic

www.icr.org...

Did you really just cite ICR?

That's a bad job. I mean, there's no way anyone you're trying to convince will take anything from that site seriously. It's a well known propaganda and biased, "organization". Come on, you should know better.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them?

d'oh!

Good question. And I'm done with this thread. Thanks for reminding me that my own work IN A REAL LAB, WITH REAL DATA, REAL SCIENTISTS AND HONEST RESULTS, is more important than arguing with scammers and extremists.

Don't go! Denigration of science and the purposeful propagation of misinformation by creationist must not stand.
I know creationist can be frustrating in their eternal denial but less not forget the readers. Keep correcting them, you may not get through, but the readers can look up the facts for themselves an see the deception of creationist propaganda regardless of denial.
Deception is their Achilles heel and is proving to be their downfall as world wide religion declines. In a way, it's good they raise their ugly heads in forums like this, so that we may shine a spotlight on their dishonesty, effectively removing the god head.

its a conspiracy forum. these threads make as much difference as uploading a video on youtube.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

originally posted by: neoholographic

www.icr.org...

Did you really just cite ICR?

That's a bad job. I mean, there's no way anyone you're trying to convince will take anything from that site seriously. It's a well known propaganda and biased, "organization". Come on, you should know better.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them? D'oh!

Because if they are not confronted with real facts then some might think that that their BS has a basis in fact. Which it does not.

see above response.

I do not agree..
I know several members who have abandoned creationism and other pseudoscientific woo because of knowledge they have gleaned from these forums.

and what has the world gained from this?

we each have all the significance of a pebble plunking in the mississippi river. but dont be daunted by this fact, be liberated. although arguing with these clowns is rather a waste of liberty.

Hey don't forget, some of us are here for the comedy. This is like watching people argue for flat earth.

Where is the evidence that the earth is round?

Somebody responds with peer reviewed data and advanced math that calculates the curvature of the earth and numerous scientific sources confirming it.

That's not evidence! You don't even know what that means!! I'm not going to read any of those lies! Where is the evidence the earth is round? I don't know why nobody can answer this question!!???

Watching folks make hypocrites of themselves completely unassisted brings a smile to my face on an annoying work day and that's really all I can ask for.

a reply to: cooperton

If evolution was not fruitful none of us would be here. Just cause we evolved does not make our lives meaningless. You give your life meaning, you give meaning to other peoples lives. You don't need to pretend a sky fairy does it for you, or is the reason why you should, consequence of your actions are yours and will be there with or without imaginary freinds.
Religious people do all sorts of malignant, selfish acts, religion just gives you an excuse. If you go by bronze age mythology for your morality, you will be thrown in prison in most countries.
You don't need mythology to be a good person.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Your denial of the conclusive evidence and pretending it's not there and conditioning other people with that idea isn't going to make it go away.

What conclusive evidence? Link me to the paper. I asked this in my last response to you, but shocker, just like the OP, you ignore any posts you don't like or that counter your ridiculous position. I don't think you even know what "conclusive evidence" means. You people all assume design due to complexity and creationist shills telling lies in youtube videos that you blindly swallow up without any scrutiny whatsover. Complexity alone doesn't prove intelligent design. Michael Behe / Stephen meyer claiming lies as truth in youtube videos is NOT evidence.

Provide some REAL evidence for intelligent design, not assumptions made based on the appearance of complexity.

Where's the evidence that an intelligent being or entity can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

This is the OPs question, altered for your side of the argument. Where is the evidence? Even if you proved abiogenesis and evolution completely wrong it wouldn't answer this question. Where is the evidence that an intelligent designer exists and created DNA. You have to do more than appeal to complexity. You need objective evidence that a creator exists and that this entity actually designed and created DNA. Good luck.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Your denial of the conclusive evidence and pretending it's not there and conditioning other people with that idea isn't going to make it go away.

originally posted by: Barcs
What conclusive evidence?

That which you pretend doesn't exist by defining in what form you want your evidence (apparently mythology presented as "peer reviewed scientific articles" so you can play your game at painting a picture of science denial when the mythology isn't blindly accepted and objected to and pointed out that it's mythology and the logical reasons why and how someone can discover that for themselves), how long you wanna keep playing this game? Until it's drilled into people's minds and you get what you want including the picture you want to paint of me for the rest to see by constantly twisting my position, views and commentary into your preferred straw man arguments and pretending I'm not getting my information and drawing my conclusions logically and correctly from science/knowledge: a familiarity with facts? And that I supposedly do not respect science/knowledge?

Consider the Evidence Awake!—2011

YOU are on a remote, uninhabited island. While walking along the beach, you see “John 1800” engraved on a boulder. Do you assume that because the island is isolated and uninhabited, the marks must be the result of wind or water erosion? Of course not! You rightly conclude that someone made that inscription. Why? For one thing, a string of well-defined letters and numbers—even if they are in a foreign language—does not occur naturally. Second, the statement contains meaningful information, indicating an intelligent source.

In everyday life, we encounter information encoded in many forms—such as Braille or letters of the alphabet, as well as diagrams, musical notes, spoken words, hand signs, radio signals, and computer programs involving the binary code, using zeros and ones. The information-conveying medium can be virtually anything, from light to radio waves to paper and ink. Whatever the case, people always associate meaningful information with an intelligent mind—unless such information is contained in a living cell. That information, say evolutionists, just happened or wrote itself somehow. But did it? Consider the evidence.
...
...

Wanna go back to playing 'it's just a metaphor' game and conflating what they said above about language and letters with what they said afterwards about information (and capitalize on the ambiguity of language regarding the word "information")?

I'm pretty sure you won't actually read the rest there under that link, but hoping someone else will.

Here, let me help with the propagandistic repetition of the twists and straw man arguments, quoting you:

Provide some REAL evidence for intelligent design, not assumptions made based on the appearance of complexity.

Which becomes extra funny (you said you wanted comedy) if I managed to avoid using the word complexity to not open the door for that twist in all or most of my commentary so far, can't remember, I do usually try to avoid giving people that assist unless I'm quoting from someone else.

Sometimes a picture can say a 1000 words, but a song even more, more comedy:



Thanks at least for admitting you're here for "comedy" and not truths/facts/certainties/realities, even though that's not the whole reason you're here and "comedy" is probably not even a particular appropiate terminology to describe your true motives. I'm thinking about the words "stars" and "pride" again but that may be because TzarChasm quoted someone mentioning pride, and one of those 2 is more a means to an end and the other an effect as well as a cause or motive (it's a rather vicious damaging mental circle).

Lots of comedy in this playlist (I even selected the most comedic video to link to, that would not be the first video in the playlist). As well as the evidence you pretend isn't evidence because it's not tickling your ears so you make up an excuse not to consider it or respond more logically and reasonably to it. You want people distracted from it by plugging your own so-called "evidence" for evolutionary myths, such as Krazysh0t, Phantom423 and a couple of others have been very busy at as well.

And since most of you won't click anyway, and to provide the comedy you say you're craving for, and because the observant reader probably already knows what video is the most comedic video representative of the utter nonsense occasionaly (usually when it's about philosophical naturalism and trying to fit in a hidden 'nature did it' where nature didn't do it) coming out of so-called "peer reviewed science" and those getting numerous awards for their work in physics and biology; and because I can't get enough of it either:


Swap "love" for "science/knowledge" or "evidence" regarding those who have used those words inappropiately (or giving the wrong impression) in the song below:

originally posted by: whereislogic
Consider the Evidence Awake!—2011

YOU are on a remote, uninhabited island. While walking along the beach, you see “John 1800” engraved on a boulder. Do you assume that because the island is isolated and uninhabited, the marks must be the result of wind or water erosion? Of course not! You rightly conclude that someone made that inscription. Why? For one thing, a string of well-defined letters and numbers—even if they are in a foreign language—does not occur naturally. Second, the statement contains meaningful information, indicating an intelligent source.

In everyday life, we encounter information encoded in many forms—such as Braille or letters of the alphabet, as well as diagrams, musical notes, spoken words, hand signs, radio signals, and computer programs involving the binary code, using zeros and ones. The information-conveying medium can be virtually anything, from light to radio waves to paper and ink. Whatever the case, people always associate meaningful information with an intelligent mind—unless such information is contained in a living cell. That information, say evolutionists, just happened or wrote itself somehow. But did it? Consider the evidence.
...
...

THIS IS NOT conclusive evidence of a creator or intelligent design process. It is appealing to complexity, just as I told you above. Complexity doesn't prove squat. You cited no experiments, no tests, no way to verify that it was created. It is basically a guess. LMAO at calling that conclusive evidence.

I'm pretty sure you won't actually read the rest there under that link, but hoping someone else will.

I've read those arguments before. It's nothing new. They basically say, "DNA is super complex. Therefor it must have been created." That's not an argument based on evidence, that's a complete guess. There is nothing conclusive about that.

Which becomes extra funny (you said you wanted comedy) if I managed to avoid using the word complexity to not open the door for that twist in all or most of my commentary so far, can't remember, I do usually try to avoid giving people that assist unless I'm quoting from someone else.

Yeah, you are super slick because you avoided a word, which comes immediately following the quote from your source. You are just playing games. Comedy is right. I find it hard to believe that folks are this willfully ignorant. It has to be a stand up routine.

Dawkins video is irrelevant as I'm ask YOU for your conclusive evidence that you completely failed to provide and instead resort to ad hom attacks, and ramblings about nothing related to the topic. Good job, sir, you set your cause back even further.

So no evidence yet. You gonna post it or just stick with irrelevant fallacies?

a reply to: Barcs

You have to keep in mind that you're engaged in a back and forth with someone who's faith forbids them from basic scientific achievements like life saving blood transfusions so nobody is going to make any headway with someone who keeps quoting JW's 'Awake' as a counter to peer reviewed data. I love when they rant like children who let go of the string on their balloon and cry as it floats away all while doing the same old song and dance about the myth and mysticism of Peer Review. It just augments and cements the fact that they haven't got a clue about how science works period let alone the science they are so fearful of. Otherwise they would grasp the fact that every time a paper is published, every person in that field is going to go through it with a fine toothed comb looking for flaws and errors so they can call you out on it and make you look like an ass. Instead, they have it in their head that it's a big old clubhouse we all hang out at patting each other on the back for another fine day ofF'ing with the young earth creationists while we smoke our Monte Cristo's and sip on cognac.

a reply to: whereislogic

You keep calling science propoganda and then your defense of said "propaganada" is always multiple links to the Jehovah's Witness Propoganda Site and you claim that everything on that website is a fact. Science doesn't have an agenda. Scientists don't have an agenda other than to follow the evidence where is leads. JEHOVAHS WITNESSES HAVE AN AGENDA.

Evolution is the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind and it has led people astray from the intelligence that created it. Let's break this down. So far, there hasn't been answers to a simple question. People have not been able to put together an articulate response. Here's more:

What is natural selection?

It's a blind, random process that occurs after the fact. After the regulatory network that was DESIGNED BY INTELLIGENCE instructs the translation, transcription and the reading of a gene sequence, it reaches the environment then natural selection occurs. Here's an example:

Let's talk about the peppered moth since someone brought that up. In the early 1800's, the peppered moth was light colored. It was easy for it to blend in and not get eaten. The industrial revolution happened and the dark colored moth that made up about 2% of moths made up 95% of moths by the end of the century. This happened because as things got dirtier and darker because of the industrial revolution, the darker moths were able to blend in better than the lighter moths and the lighter moths started to die out while the darker moths increased and their population grew through reproduction.

This is natural selection. It's blind, random and it can't give meaning and function to a sequence of DNA that regulates expression. It just means, if you have a trait that's better at surving in the environment, your population will increase through reproduction.

What's happening here is, there's a network of regulatory genes that regulate gene expression. This regulatory network is highly designed by intelligence based on sequences of DNA that has meaning and function. Even with the smallest genome, this regulatory network is complex.

The little bacterium has 473 genes. And the team at the J. Craig Venter Institute in California admit they don't know what a third of the actually do. They just know the microbe dies without them.

"It actually taught us that we need to be a lot more humble about basic knowledge in biology," Venter said.

Scientists have been humbled before. They once thought that large stretches of the human genome that did not code for actual genes was "junk DNA". It's now clear that junk is essential for making everything work.

www.nbcnews.com...

That's the key!

ESSENTIAL FOR MAKING EVERYTHING WORK!

This is the regulatory network that simply DESTROYS any notion of evolution without intelligent agency.

There's a regulatory network that selective pressures from the environment and mutations can interfere with. This means you will have VARIATIONS of the the genes the network expresses.Darwin and his followers saw these variations and made the HUGE LEAP that these variations were responsible for all life. Now to be fair, Darwin said this:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.

Sadly for Darwin, the simple cell turned into a super computer and it can store vast amounts of information in DNA around the size of a tylenol tablet. In that gram of DNA, 20th Century fox could encode every movie they ever made and then some.

Take the gene LRP5 that some like to use as an example of a mutation creating new information or function.

One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

bigthink.com...

It could turn you into Mr. Glass LOL.

Anyway, the question here is, did the mutation create any DNA sequence that gives meaning and function to a DNA sequence that regulates expression? Of course not.

You have a gene LRP5 that's FIT. It's regulatory network makes a FIT protein. Mutations and selective pressure can interfere with the expression of LRP5 and the result is a VARIATION of LRP5 not anything new.

The regulatory network contains the information to make every species on the planet.

It can be seen like Adam before the fall. Before the fall, all genes being read and transcribed by the regulatory network are FIT. After the fall, the genese being read and transcribed by the regulatory network are subject to mutations so you get VARIANTS of a FIT gene.

So, most people who support Intelligent Design say there's VARIATION within species. What Darwinist call a "common anscestor" is just the FIT genes that the regulatory network expresses.

a reply to: neoholographic

You believe in the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden with the only evidence being a myth from thousands of years ago. You believe evolution is a hoax despite all the evidence in support of it. That sounds logical

What possible reason do scientists have to convince us of a lie ? What is there to gain? I think as we begin to learn more regilgious institutions are realizing that they aren't going to have the cash crop they used to and control over the people they once had. So now as a last resort they great all this ridiculous creation propoganda. They say scientists are lying and covering up evidence. This thread is ridiculous as evolution is a proven science. You can't disprove evoktion no matter how many YouTube videos you have claiming its false.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Man, you guys are just so typical.

I used Adam and Eve as an analogy to illustrate my point. If you noticed, there's a pretty long post before I mentioned Adam and Eve.

I put that in there for a reason though. I said, watch someone read this post and zero in on Adam and Eve because they can't debate the issue.

It's just so predictable!

a reply to: neoholographic

And your OP has been refuted numerous times already by multiple members but you just ignored them. I've read it all.

There's no need to answer anymore because you won't take the evidence that's already been presented to you over a dozen Times. Typical of a creationists to turn away from the evidence because then your religion would be wrong and that you can not handle.

originally posted by: neoholographic
What is natural selection?

It's a blind, random process that occurs after the fact.

Natural selection is not random. It is basically organisms following the environment. If a bunch of mice live in a brown field, wouldn't the mice with brown fur have a higher chance of survival from predators? That is not random in the least, it's logic 101. More brown mice survive, more brown fur genes get passed down, hence the brown mice take over that niche. Same thing with the peppered moths, funny how you yourself just provided evidence for evolution right there.

the regulatory network that was DESIGNED BY INTELLIGENCE

Citation still needed.

This is natural selection. It's blind, random and it can't give meaning and function to a sequence of DNA that regulates expression. It just means, if you have a trait that's better at surving in the environment, your population will increase through reproduction.

Natural selection is not random in the least, as I already mentioned. Natural selection affects traits that have already emerged via genetic mutation. This isn't rocket science (to most of us).

What's happening here is, there's a network of regulatory genes that regulate gene expression. This regulatory network is highly designed by intelligence based on sequences of DNA that has meaning and function. Even with the smallest genome, this regulatory network is complex.

Once again, complexity doesn't prove design. You have no evidence to suggest that it cannot arise naturally or that a prior intelligence is necessary. You guess blindly that it was designed by intelligence because it's complex and you don't understand how it might have arisen. You post no experiments, no evidence, no tests, no way to even determine something like that. You just blindly and randomly appeal to complexity.

In the past people thought lightning and rain were complex. They didn't understand what caused them, so they attributed it to gods. Now, thanks to the scientific method, we understand exactly how rain works and what causes lightning. Or do you deny this as well? Rain and lightning do not seem so complex anymore because we understand it. In the future, we will likely understand far more about DNA and abiogenesis. You assume intelligent design strictly because we don't yet fully understand how DNA emerged. That's faulty logic because we aren't yet at the pinnacle of scientific understanding.

Sadly for Darwin, the simple cell turned into a super computer and it can store vast amounts of information in DNA around the size of a tylenol tablet. In that gram of DNA, 20th Century fox could encode every movie they ever made and then some.

Do you have an example of an organ or trait that is proven to be irreducibly complex? No you don't. Do you have proof that DNA could not have started very simple in function and then evolved over 3 billion years to the complexity it is now? I don't think you fully appreciate how long 3.8 billion years is. We can watch quickly reproducing organisms speciate in under 50 years in a lab. There's no reason to believe that in a million years they wouldn't change substantially more.

Anyway, the question here is, did the mutation create any DNA sequence that gives meaning and function to a DNA sequence that regulates expression? Of course not.

I don't think you have mentioned this point yet.

The meaning of the sequences was already there prior to the mutation.

The one big thing that completely shuts down your case about intelligent design is the following:

Errors in copying. If DNA was created by a brilliant intelligence, why are there so many mutations? The average human has near 130 different mutations from the previous generation. Why do these errors occur so frequently if created by an all powerful god? It doesn't make sense. It would be a very sloppy job if so, so it rules out deities and leaves only an advanced alien race, but that of course begs the question of where THEY came from.

Since you guys prefer youtube videos over research papers, please watch this. It talks about abiogenesis, rna to dna and cites numerous experiments that show parts of the process. This should improve your understanding a bit in regards to how complexity can emerge without being designed.