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

Are you being ironic? Are you perhaps spoofing Creationist idiocy with this post?This is a Russell's law situation where I literally can't tell if you are presenting a Creationist argument authentically or if you are deliberately posting something dumb in order to make Creationists look stupid.I'm going to demonstrate why the sentence I quoted makes no sense by replacing "ID Creationism" with any other word involving magic. When asked for evidence of something, you can't say that the evidence in support of your claim is the "evidence". You ACTUALLY have to give someone the evidence.If evidence for ID is the evidence of ID then ID doesn't exist because there's simply no evidence. Period.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

When you look at "order", how do you conclude "design".For example, I present you with two piles of pebbles at the bottom of a cliff.Both are conical in shape. One was made by erosion knocking bits off the cliff. The other was made by me.How do you determine which of the two piles is "designed" and which is naturally occurring as a result random erosion and non-intelligent selection by gravity and the rocks on the cliff face?Same question with clearly "designed" oxbow lakes.
Same question with volcanic ash cones.
Same question with crystals in a cave.If these things which _CLEARLY_ demonstrate "order" are not "designed", then how can you determine about anything?

You are trying to imply that because something (an atom) works therefore a Wizard must have been involved to create it.But you haven't provided any EVIDENCE for the existence of a "Wizard" apart from your own conclusion.Can you demonstrate the difference between something which "works" and "requires" a wizard and something which "doesn't work" and therefore doesn't "require" a wizard?Or, is your argument, that ALL things, no matter HOW they appear/interact/whatever, are evidence of the Wizard because the Wizard is the source of ALL things?If "The Wizard created all things therefore all things are evidence of the Wizard" is your argument, then how do you counter the argument "The Dark Smurf King created all things therefore all things are evidence of the Dark Smurf King"?Or the argument: "The FSM created The Wizard and therefore is the true creator of all things"?After all, in cases of both arguments, ALL the evidence supports my claim over yours because I define evidence as ALL things.

Fire begets heat. Heat causes more fire. Is that purpose?Mass begets gravity which collects mass which attracts more gravity... Is that purpose?Poverty begets poverty. Is that the purpose of poverty?Ignorance begets ignorance. Is that the purpose of ignorance?You are declaring that a magical Jewish Wizard is involved simply because a positive feedback loop exists. Do ALL positive feedback loops imply magical wizards are involved? If not, why not? If so, what PURPOSE is ascribed to these loops?

Are you now stating for the record that there are no chemical reactions involved in the generation of life?It's ALL chemical reactions, products and byproducts.To exclude the fact that fire can cause more fire as being insignificant because it doesn't fit well into your religious dogma is the height of hypocracy.Either:
A) Anything which causes anything was design specifically to do that by the Jew Wizard
-or-
B) You are picking and choosing without any criteria.Pick one and stick to it. Jumping back and forth is childish. You can not say that mass doesn't cause gravity a sentence after claiming that no one knows what causes gravity.Gravity doesn't work on mass. Gravity is created by mass.Kinetic energy works on mass. A mass by itself doing nothing does not generation kinetic energy.A mass by itself DOES generate gravity.So, does the accumulation of random masses into large lumps of mass have a specifically designed purpose?Are you saying that ANY TWO objects in the ENTIRE universe which happen to get close to each other are all part of the Jew Wizard's master scheme?

Fire has a purpose and a function.
Mass has a purpose and a function.
Ignorance has a purpose and a function.Why are these things not on equal footing?Until you can adequately define your terms, I'm just going to keep giving you examples that not only fit your criteria but are BETTER than your example.Fire, for example, NEVER decides not to reproduce.Ignorance not only breeds ignorance, it actively goes out and trying to convince people that science is false and make believe is real.

On the contrary, exactly like with Creationism/ID the mere fact that I've SUGGESTED that this is the correct answer means it has exactly as much evidence. I really hate it when idiots use terms they don't understand. No, I did not post a single straw man.Instead I offered three VERY REAL, VERY POSSIBLE counter solutions to the exact same problem you are trying to solve with the answer "A Jewish Wizard".If you want to set the policy of writing off examples because one or more people thinks they are "silly", then guess what's gonna happen to your "Jews have Magic!" claim? Really? Can you point to a single verified, undisputed point which points ONLY to a magical Jewish Wizard and not the Invisible King of the Dark Smurfs et al?Didn't think so.Here's the problem with playing make believe. The threshold for entry is EXTREMELY low. Anyone can make up ANYTHING and it's JUST as valid as your claims.

Bullshit.To get ANY improvement of ANY kind does not require "several correlated changes" nor does it require them to happen "at the same time" or in "just the right place".An example:
A gene can be duplicated in one generation, then mutate several times over the next 100 generations before ultimately resulting in something beneficial. During the interim, the original gene still exists and still serves it's function. No need for "instant" change to the 2ndary gene. So, no "at the same time".Further, the duplicate gene doesn't have to have mutations occur in "just the right place" since changes to it have no effect on the original gene.Additionally, your example of tossing coins is based on a single coin tosser tossing coins once.Yes, in order for the Jewish Wizard to Poof a man out of clay, all the DNA would have to line up in "one toss".However, evolution doesn't predict that - creationism does.You wanna run the math, here's the REAL scenario.Goal:
Get all 150 coins to come up heads.Event:
1) First thrower tosses coins.
2) Count the number of heads.
3) Add one thrower for each coin which came up heads. Put that many heads up coins on the ground in front of them.
4) Have them each toss a number of coins equal to the number of tails.
5) Repeat 2-4 until 4 results in 0 coins.First throw: 1 thrower, results 75/75
Second throw: 76 throwers, best result 105/45
Third throw: 178 throwers, best result 140/10
Fourth throw: 255 throwers, best result 150/0Hardly "impossible".

Do you believe that lightning is supernatural in origin?
Do you believe that earthquakes are supernatural in origin?
Do you believe that rainbows are supernatural in origin?
Rain? Clouds the look like things? Comets? Volcanoes?The list of things which religious people claimed were "supernatural" in origin and which are now demonstrated to not be supernatural is VERY VERY long.The list of things which religious people claimed were "supernatural" in origin and which are now demonstrated to actually be "supernatural" is EMPTY.So, you are asking us to accept your belief as being AS valid as our belief based on a track record of being wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME for the ENTIRE HISTORY of the WORLD.If you owned a baseball team and had one player who had batted .000 for 2000 years, at what point would you say: "You're off the team"?

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?