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

What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any worth or relevance?

I'm saying it can be used to explain (for example) how mammals eyes came into existence in a world with life without eyes.

And so I asked "What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any worth or relevance?"

It depends on what evidence supports the dispute. The "evidence" brought forth by creation "scientists" and their stepchildren, IDers, has been refuted time and time again--to no effect.

There is a lot of evidence for an old earth. Pretty much all of it, in fact. But there is no evidence to suggest that evolution didn't happen. There is only belief and dogma.

the only approach in establishing evidence with present information seems to be limited to logic and its physical applications

Gibberish.

Is it not true that you believe that purpose is the result of intent by someone and not the result of natural processes "operating in and of themselves"?

Arent these explanations disputed.

Not in any meaningful way, no.

Seems to me, it allows evolution. Of course, it allows unfalsifiable theories too. Is your theory that life/everything was designed unfalsifiable?

For that, you just need to see what happened to Indians in America. And that was "civilized" and christian people doing that. To make the answer short, when two species occupy the same ecological niche (especially one as murderous as humans), one is going to go extinct.

Nearly 600 messages and no such methodology has been offered by its most vociferous -- albeit incomprehensible -- proponent here, despite repeated requests and pleas that the methodology be presented. Still appears that no such methodology exists. And that ID quite obviously does not belong in the science classroom, except as a bad example so that the students can learn to distinguish pseudo-science from science.

The problem, whether you agree or not, is that Evolution has lots of work behind it, ID doesn't have much beside what you call logic. Did Einstein petitioned public schools to get his theory accepted? Did Niels Bohr do that? Did Georges Lemaitre insist that his theory be taught in shools? Actually, did any scientists ever appealed to the public to get their theories taught in schools? The fact is that all scientific theories that get taught in schools never appealed to the public at large to influence school policy, they always followed the scientific process and became taught when the scientific community accepted it.
You can argue that your way is better, but it's certainly not science. Why don't you insist religious and like minded people create their own version of science? If you are right and your method is better, you will get better results by taking into account this designer in about every domain. You already have fundings (all those megachurches) and plenty of motivated people to do this.

A rant is not a rebuttal.

Okay, so you're saying that sufficient evidence would indicate that a function actually had a purpose that was constructed with intent. Given that this thread is about the evidence for a design and a designer, can you provide an example of some function for which you have evidence of purpose and intent, and can you describe that evidence?

Since people do in fact do all these things, may we conclude that the creator was a failure?

Succinct, to the point, and humorous, all at once. The Doctor rules.

If you include having you land stolen, your sacred sites desecrated, your people confined to reservations and constant discrimination riding the gravy train then you might have a point. But so far you are simply showing that you know as little about history or the US today as you do about science, reason, logic or honesty.