Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists

Well, who the designer is depends on context. When IDists are trying to get Christians to support them, it's totally God, and then when they're trying to persuade a judge that they're not violating the First Amendment they're all: "Well, it doesn't have to be God, it could be ... uh ... aliens. Yeah, aliens!"

"If something is designed then it is designed" would be the law of identity.To examine your proposition, which is different, we would have to know what you think "the elements of design" are.We would then need to verify your premises by checking (a) whether all things which have these elements are indeed designed (b) whether life has those elements.Now, suppose we cannot agree on whether things with what you denote as "the elements of design" really are always designed. Suppose I were to suggest that some of them, namely living organisms, were products of evolution. Then in order to establish the first premise, you would have to come up with some argument that living things are designed rather than evolved. Which is what you were trying to do in the first place: in order to make you argument for the design and against the evolution of organisms watertight, you would first have to construct a watertight argument for the design and against the evolution of organisms.

Surely the paper would actually have been rejected because clairvoyance is not an accepted form of scientific inquiry. When people produced actual evidence, where was the pushback from people saying "you must be wrong because biochemistry doesn't work that way"?

Well, if you can actually find me someone who said before the discovery of the ribosome that protein synthesis couldn't happen bit by bit instead of simultaneously, or pushing back against the discoveries as they were made on the grounds that they had to be wrong, and doing so with reference to a "non-telelogical framework", then that would illustrate your point nicely.

Please state what "the elements of intelligent design" are. If it turns out that these are characteristics shared by living organisms, which scientists claim were produced by evolution, then you are indeed making an assumption that you have not yet justified.

I say that they're not machines. They're actually musical instruments in the woodwind family. Prove me wrong, find a single scientific paper that argues that they aren't.

Quite so. And to be the originator of it should make you want to hang your head in shame. You mean, in that they all say it's an enzyme?

Why, thank you. As my first act of rulership I banish you from this thread. Begone!

I see mikey tried to start a new thread to commit the same silly logical fallacy as in this one.Mikey, mikey, please try to think of a new mistake.

And again.

Or indeed if you took a rabbit and placed it on the sidewalk would anyone say --- "oh, look, there's a whole lot of machines!"

But you always have a blind spot. Doing something strange with your eyes is just the only way you're going to notice it, but it's there affecting your vision all the time, without you noticing it. (And arguably a problem you don't know you have is worse than a problem you do know you have: for example a fool who thinks he's clever is worse off than a fool who knows he's a fool.) And that's what we've got.But if there was a perfect creator, you'd expect none.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.