No, semi-valid means it has some good points but not all the talking points are correct or complete.
"Your code is semi-valid"
"Uh, does that mean it's valid?"
"Well, no, I like parts of it, but ... "
"So you mean it's broken and invalid then."
Say what you mean. If there are parts that are not correct, then break it and show that it's broke. That's what rational argument *is*.
It's either valid or invalid. If there's any part that is broken, then it is invalid. Otherwise, a failure to find broken parts indicates that the argument is valid.
Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it doesn't make the point of answering what started it all,
I wasn't talking about origins. I was criticizing evolution as a design process. It boils down to try random things and see what fails to go extinct.
That's insufficient to build something intricately complex, based on our actual experience with software and computer engineering. It's an article of faith that throwing infinite time at a lousy process will allow it to create excellent outputs.
I never said junk DNA, 99.8% of all DNA is just the "house keeping" DNA, it's the same for every person, ti's the other .2% that makes me, me and you, you. I might have the percentages off, but none the less, the idea works.
I know you did not. It was part of my overall point about the intricacy of human design and inadequacy of randomly driven evolution as an explanation for its existence.
Well if you take an infinite amount of time, a team of monkeys at some point, even randomly mashing on the keyboard will of course be able to replicate my work.
... Theoretically. You have not actually performed that experiment, and the universe has existed for a finite duration of time, based on our current physics understanding and the constraints of thermodynamics.
That I could theoretically level a mountain by myself given an infinite amount of time does not indicate I have actually done so.
The world looks designed, I've admitted that, however that doesn't mean God designed it.
I said I would offer a rational argument for God. This fulfills the requirements. That you can come up with a counter argument does not negate the existence or rationality of the argument.
I'll give you forgiveness in that I didn't answer abiogenesis, so I won't make you answer abiogod, but you would still have to show beyond all possible doubts that DNA could not started on earth without a designer, which is going to be hard because scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab.
Please look at the italicized and bolded parts and think through your arguments more thoroughly.
Back to the main point, I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DNA was designed. That's a standard of evidence used for criminal trials to avoid harming the innocent. We can and do use different standards for different topics.
Whether or not the "design" is actually from a designer does not change that designers are observed to create designs, and designers are a reasonable explanation for the existence of anything that has a "design".
It's poor argument because you've only really said that 1 didn't design 1 and there for God.
1. Someone with the ability to create man and all other life has sufficient creative power to be considered god.
2. The existence of man is evidence for such a being's existence.
3. Thus, the existence of man is evidence for god existing.
I don't care how you feel about the argument. Either break it or accept that it is a valid argument, even if you don't like the conclusion.