A)Gman wrote:If one has a car, does one need to meet the designer of the car to prove that the designer made it?
Gman's argument is basically:
1) Examine a car
2) Obviously something so complicated and purposeful must have a designer.
Instead of a "car", what about a "frghjtkl"? Do "frghjtkls" have designers? As godslanguage wrote "I just assumed that everyone knew how a car looks like". But everyone knows that a "car" is a "transportation device designed by humans". So Gman's argument is really:
1) Examine a device designed by humans
2) Obviously this device has a designer.
Expressed in that form, it is a much less convincing argument. A better argument would be to give the reasons why a car must have a designer. A best approach would be some objective test which could ascertain the presence of "design".
B)Godslanguage's argument is much the same.
Gman wrote:Computers are a natural component, created by humans who are also natural. Cells composed of DNA are millions of time more complex than a computer. ...
How can evolution miss the part about "intelligence" completely and prescribe it to random processes which are not evident in everything else but darwinian evolution itself?
Ofcourse, nobody has answered any part of my original question. How come evolution (random processes) is capable of developing such complex structures,and I'm sure you can give me your detailed explanation on this, but--> since it doesn't involve intelligent input??? .
Everything humans have ever created needed it.
This argument is basically:
1) Intelligent humans can design complex technology
2) Humans are more complex than their technology
3) Humans have not seen complex things develop without intelligence
4) Therefore complex things cannot develop without intelligence
5) Therefore humans must be designed
Step (4) here is the weak link. "A implies B" does not mean "B implies A". In the absence in this design theory of something like the laws of thermodynamics (which preclude perpetual motion machines), a better argument for claiming that complex entities cannot develop without intelligence is needed.
[The human/computer analogy is also quite limited.]
[And others in this field (such as Dembski) differentiate between "complex" and "information containing".]
[And yes, DNA and semiconductors are both made of atoms. How many things you can pick up aren't?]