Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?

I am always being asked to give my evidence for intelligent design.However, no matter what I say, the same question comes up as if I never had anything to offer.
For example: My reply was as follows and Granny Magda's answer to that follows thereafter: I contend that my examples are evidence for intelligent design.

Hi adminnosy, Ok great -lets go with that.

Hi docukaeru Well compared to the time that unicellular forms apparently hung around unchanged -very explosive -work it out compared to how many unique and complex forms there are, it was a fraction of the time one would expect for such diversity by mutation and selection.
We would expect everything diverse to appear complex and suddenly which is why it works far better for ID then it does for gradualism. It would also fulfil a prediction that we wouldn’t find hundreds or thousands of gradual steps leading up to the forms found.

Hi Granny, Well we know that it is generally true which is why PE was produced as an explanation. PE would explain it, I suppose, though like you, I’m not a fan of that sort of forced explanation.
I wouldn’t really put it down to a limited fossil record, it occurs in a similar fashion no matter how many fossils are found over the years.
Though it may not necessarily be the automatic default explanation, it is nonetheless what we would expect and so would fulfil a prediction of ID’s and I think that that is the point. It is a point both against gradualistic evolution and for sudden appearance of created biological creatures.

Hello Lucy, Well I couldn't have said it better. In fact everything that evolutionists do seems to be done to disprove creation just as much as creationists try to disprove evolution. Why? Evidence against the one IS evidence for the other in a general sense. Personally I don't think there are any other valid theories worth looking at. We were created/we were not created. God created everything/nothing created everything
...what else is there?
You just have to consider that for a little while and apart from the obvious absurdities, that is all there is.

I wasn't aware that there was so much contradictory evidence. As far as I know there are differing interpretations of the same evidence and one interpretation works better than the other. Which contradictions are you talking about? Hopefully one day you'll realize how absurd and against the evidence the whole concept of macroevolution is as well. That's not what I hear - most people gave up the old model because they were induced to believe that 'science' had evidence for an old earth that was incontrovertible. At that point a lot of them started to compromise in order to fit in with that supposed fact. Many never ever believed in evolution however and never needed to throughout their professional careers.Certain university courses have a tendency to turn people into atheists via brainwashing into their philisophical worldview and announcing as fact that which is not. Like lining up dead fossils in series that can never actually be verified and announcing their perfect fit even if nobody can actually see much less prove the connection or relation at all? Or like finding human or ape remains and insisting that they are human/ape intermediates for this or that obscure reason until they realize that they have been using artistic licence to the extreme and none of what they imagined was true after all.It's amazing what you can find if you believe that something happened...remember Piltdown man? and Nebraska man? and archeoraptor?...just a few off the top of my head that sucked an incredible number of supposedly intelligent people in. As far as I can see it's just never ending self deception when you decide that something is true.Of course you'll say the same for me but I wonder who is actually right...When you have life, you need organization and for organization, you need intelligence.Life doesn't just come from arranging the parts either or you would be able to raise the dead since they have all the correct proteins and other components already in place.

The problem is this -perhaps it could but on the other hand perhaps it could not. It's no good looking at what is present in the fossils and saying 'well there it happened, therefore it must have been possible'. You don't know that it happened by evolution.The probability of Darwinist evolution depnds apon the quantity of favorable micromutations required to create complex organs and organisms, the frequency with which such favorable micromutations occur just where and when they are needed, the efficacy of NS in preserving the slight improvements with sifficient consistency to permit the benefits to accumulate and the time allowed by the fossil record for all of this to have happened.Unless we make calculations taking all of this into account, we have no way of knowing whether it is probable or improbable."Whether one finds the gradualist scenarios for the development of complex systems plausibleinvolves an element of subjective judgement. It is a matter of objective fact, however, that these scenarios are speculation." (Phillip Johnson -Darwin on Trial)This absence of historical or experimental confirmation is presumably what Gould had in mind when he wrote that "These tales, in the just-so tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything." So is this science?I understand that generations are much more important than years but that doesn't mean that there were enough generations available just because you believe that it happened.That's philosophy, not proven fact.

Good one -soon I'll let you know unless you'd like to start it?

Yes it was Gould.He doubted a lot of his colleagues' imaginative stories -but somehow, inexplicably he didn't give up on evolution despite this and his comments on things like sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record. The problem with this is that if you're going to craft a hypothetical situation and you have no alternatives to consider, your crafting wins in the absence of competition. It's like deciding between three different suspects in a murder case. You have to have something to check your theories against. Could it have been this one or does he have an alibi; maybe the next one, any reason why not? -but not with evolution, its just a matter of which just-so evolutionary tale do we accept?There is no other option that they are willing to consider -so as far as forensics goes, it's pretty easy for evolution to win every time. The problem with this is that there is the initial philisophical assumption that these things are related via a common ancestor that clouds any clarity of vision on the topic.
Homology is supposed to explain the formation of the gut in vertebrates but if it were true, the gut should form pretty much the same way embryonically but they so often don't -instead they often form from totally different genes in different parts of the embryo defying the logic of relatedness.
So there, how about that for evidence of ID -homologous features in apparently evolutionarily related creatures have no embryological developmental connection whatsoever, so ID is a better explanation. You may say that is evidence against evolution but it certainly is evidence for separate creation of different kinds of biological creatures. There we go -constructing just-so stories on the assumption that organs have transitioned -philisophical bias there.Has not been proven -no mechanism for it. Dead bones -no date attached, no-one was there -can't prove that any one of those fossils is related to any other(unless you can catch them fossilized while giving birth.)Forensics is just not quite the same as things like gravity.

The coded information in DNA is evidence for an intelligent designer
-specified complexity.Now you tell me why it is better as evidence for evolution or why an intelligent designer is not allowed as an alternative explanation.

Well Percy I'm sorry that you were not impressed by the logic of the argument for specified complexity because I was. I suppose since evolutionists do seem by and large to support 'the theory of no design' even when it looks like design, it is to be expected.The problem is again in the philosophy of the evolutionist - it can't be designed because there is no designer so even when it looks like design by reason of its intricate organization, we call it 'designoid' or 'apparent design' as if you know for sure that something that truelly looks like design truelly can't have been designed.In the Bible it is called 'willful blindness' -we can't see it because we don't want to.