The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

Wearer to tell time?The designers purpose was to create a product to sell.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It appears that your purpose on these threads is to be pedantic.

When you have magical poofing as your primary mechanism it is a bit hard to stand on your own as a science. What they are hoping to do is tear down all competing theories (by whatever means necessary) and hope that no one notices that the Emporer has no clothes.Even when we ask for experiments that could test ID we instead get experiments that are meant to test evolution.

I don't mean to seem pedantic but Dawn and Dennis are pretty loose in actually defining purpose. The point I am trying to make is that the watch itself has NO purpose. The designer had a purpose and the wearer has a purpose but both are totally independent of the watch itself and in fact, the purpose of both the designer and the wearer could be fulfilled even if the watch did not exist. The designer is doing a job to earn money. It could be designing watches or tailfins. The wearer could look at the sun or stars or a sundial or use any of the myriad other methods developed to tell time.Dawn and Dennis are just making stuff up and trying to lead folk off down those very attractive rabbit holes.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Why are they better? Why does order and law evidence design? Why is it a logical and reasonable assumption? Except in the case of life where order is produced through unintelligent processes. You don't get to dismiss falsifications of your claims so easily. But we can test hypotheses. You always seem to ignore this fact. Negative argument fallacy. It is up to you to support your claims, not for your challengers to disprove. It appears that you need to brush up on the use of logic. We can provide testable hypotheses as to how life gains order through the process of evolution. Where are your testable hypotheses? So the cuboidal design in a salt crystal imply that a designer placed each and every atom in a cuboidal arrangement? Or did this design occur through unintelligent mechanisms?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

5.9 10⁴⁵ molecules--Percy

Talk about a thread-killer. Sheesh.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

Actually negative changes will tend to impair the carriers, but they will not necessarily die off. That is very context sensitive, and assuming the negative aspect is not immediately life threatening, it could be some generations before any effect was seen.The point being that neutral and mildly negative mutations can and will exist in the population, adding to the variability.

Yes, you're right. However, statistically speaking, every negative change that isnt fatal has the same chance of occurring as every positive change that isnt overwhelmingly positive.All of the fatal changes are fatal; all of the beneficial changes that are remarkably beneficial quickly catch to the species as a whole in following generations.The concept of positive evolution is possible.

Which ocean was being asked about? I calculated 4.5 x 10⁴⁶ molecules for all five oceans.

Lol, Hooah. ID serves as an adjective of the noun creationist in my sentence. I happen to be of the ID version of creationist and/or the creationist version of IDist. Creationists aren't the only IDists. ID is not creationism perse. Get it?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

LoL. No creationist or IDist value gets by undisputed in this town, no matter how much solid evidence is cited.

Can you point to a single verified bit of "solid evidence"?

Well let's test that claim."Design Proponent" replaces the word "Creationist" in text books in all sentences without any change in context.If two terms have the exact same meaning - doesn't that mean that both terms have the same definition?Further, Intelligent Design was invented BY Creationists who have admitted that they made up the term to get around the legal actions which prevented them from using the term "Creationist".So, since THEY admit they are the same. And the terms have the same definition.Can you point to a way in which Intelligent Design and Creationism are different?

Golly, you noticed.Did you also see the sign on the door as you came in? You know, where it says "EvC"? The "C" stands for "creationism" and the "v" stands for "versus".I forget about the "E".