starScream;
The direct evidence I submitted was biological life.
You SAY this is evidence for God. All it is is you saying that it is evidence for god. That's not proof. I say it's evidence for cheesecake. You can't prove me wrong, can you? That''s why I say your arguement is illogical.
Our dichotomy is the theory that non-living matter became living matter for no reason at all or biological life was specifically created.
That statement displays your ignorance of theories relating to abiogenesis, "non-living matter became living matter for no reason at all" is not even remotely a characterisation of theories of abiogenesis. If you have to use a strawman in even describing your oponents opinions, your arguement isn;t worth a damn. You don't even know what counter theories you are discarding. Fine. Your choice.
There are only two possibilties. Neither one is illogical based on what we know. It is no less logical to assume biological life was designed and created than it is to assume it formed naturally. The test is to see if biological life can simply form naturally. If it can't form naturally that proves it was created.
How did god get here? Your whole theory falls flat on its face, as the argument you use destroys your own viewpoint. 'The test is to see if god can form naturally. If god can't form naturally that proves life evolved.' You are saying something complex cannot come about naturally, yet the god required by your theory would have had to come about from nothing.
Actually, abilogenesis would not create a complex organism. The first organisms probably were very simple. Look at Prions. Do you even know what they are? If you don't, again, you don't even know enough to make the claims you make with any level of assurance. On the other hand, the spontaneous generation of god, a vastly complex and powerful entity, is a bit unlikely in comparison.
Thus your arguement that complexity cannot happen naturally destroys any agruement you might, in the event of you having the guts to do so, make regarding your theory of god.
Labeling me as illogical and irrational for taking one side of a two faced coin does not illiminate one of the faces. It is there whether you like it or not.
The whole point is you are making a completely irrelevent arguement, let alone the illogicity of it, but don't know it, as you don't know enough about biology to realise how little you know. You talk about the neccesity of god because you think a designer was required.
Okay, from your viewpoint, explain the clitoris of the spotted hyena. You are saying that this was designed - if not I'd love to know how you believe it came about.
The clitoris of female spotted hyenas have grown so large they are described as psuedo-penises. They are erectile, they have a fake scotum with fake testes. They urinate, copulate and give birth down this tiny appature.
It is such bad design that 10% of mothers die in their first pregnancy, and 60% of cubs born to new mother die.
Evolutionary biology explains this very simply. The females are large, aggressive, and well able to secure food for their growing cubs. The largest most aggressive females can genetically overwhelm 'less fit' females, so that after a few generations, all hyenas in a pack are descended from them, even with the terrible mortaility rate their phsiology inflicts. This is why such an unusual thing has happened; it worked, not pretty, not elegant, just evolution coming up with a solution.
If you think that supports 'design', you'd better buy an Edsel.
There are many other examples of bad design starScream. Whilst initial origins are unsolvable, whilst there is no direct scientific proof of either abiogenesis or creation, if you actually OPEN your eyes and look at the world, you don't NEED proof of initial origin, you don't NEED proof of abiogenesis or creation, you can see that the 'design arguement' is unfounded, and chiefly made by people whose scientific knowledge stems from the Discovery channel (or an even lower level) but who want to retain precious beliefs.
You're welcome to them.
