Here's why Creatards might be right

[TheRocketSurgeon]

If you want evidence that Intelligent Design had nothing to do with it, you can read the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case for yourself. The top proponent of Intelligent Design, from the science world (Michael Behe) got his ass handed to him by a lawyer, when pressed for details on his general, sweeping statements about ID and Irreducible Complexity. (Edit to Add: He also was forced to admit, under oath, that his ideas were not science, and that he had actually preferred his woo-woo version so much that he had failed to keep up with several scientific papers which had proved the exact things he claimed could not happen under ID/IC, as he had proposed it. Basically he formed an emotionally-satisfying idea, ID/IC, and stuck to it even in the face of better data... this is the opposite of science.)

When you keep repeating what are basically Behe's arguments, with the added flavor of not actually understanding what biology actually says about how we develop, it tells me that you don't want to know the facts, but prefer your own woo-woo version of it.

If you actually want to know about Kitzmiller, you can read about it here, along with a lot of good biology info:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/ki...ision.html

[jenny1972]

Where in that process does your intelligent designer fit? And what did it actually do?

your just assuming that an intelligent designer isnt required and that lifeforms determine their own characteristics and growth . how can an organism decide its own individual development ? it just develops naturally without thought of its own regarding it.

You should have stopped at "isn't required". Everything after "and" is bullshit.

No organism does that. And you know it.

Our DNA codes for how we develop. We have no say in what DNA we inherit, and how it tells our body to develop. We have nothing to do with it; we're just along for the ride. If during that ride, our DNA has told our bodies to develop in such a way that we are not as suited to the environment or to the reproductive process as everyone else, we'll have fewer offspring to pass on that program to. 

As soon as you say it's "decide" versus "without thought", it tells us that you're confusing the organism with its DNA program. The DNA operates on the laws of chemistry and probability, nothing more. The rest is superfluous.

exactly its rediculous to think that an organism decides for itself how it will develop , so what designed the DNA codes for different living organisms all evolving from the same planet under the same sun ? there is a large variety of different DNA in existence

---

Yeah but RS, what the hell do you know?  You're just a biologist.  

yea well the biologist said earlier  that he 'did not disagree with the possibility that some Creator "set up" the laws of the universe so that it would unfold in a manner by which the particles interacted in such a way as to produce life by natural processes'

[Ravenshire]

It's being tested as we speak.  It gets tested all day long.  I get the feeling that you think this leads somewhere that it doesn't.

yes im suggesting that maybe human intelligence isnt the apex creative intelligence in the universe based on science that is highly unlikely

I'm curious why you're so convinced that the science is "highly unlikely." Have you perhaps studied both cosmology and biology at the college level? Determined after many years of research that those science guys have got it all wrong?

Or, are you simply talking out your ass for the sake of hearing your own voice. Because that's what it sounds like. Your views on the Big Bang and evolution are fundamentally and laughably wrong yet you come here spouting shit as if you actually know something about them.

Please, enlighten us on all the education you've received on these topics.

[Ravenshire]

But I'm right though aren't I?

Not on so much as a single "point" you've made in this thread.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Updated my post on Kitzmiller. Don't want to slip something in while someone else is quoting it. So go back and read the "Edit to Add" if you have not, before posting. I'll give time to modify any posts made on that basis before I reply to anything else.

[The Valkyrie]

THe best evidence against an intelligent designer is the human body.

Either, as science explains and shows quite clearly, we evolved from earlier ancestors, which explains the failings and irregularities of the human body, or the intelligent designer is, frankly, incompetent.

[SteelCurtain]

I have a feeling jenny's really a 12 year old. Her understanding of biology and evolution is about on par with that.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

THe best evidence against an intelligent designer is the human body.

Either, as science explains and shows quite clearly, we evolved from earlier ancestors, which explains the failings and irregularities of the human body, or the intelligent designer is, frankly, incompetent.

You stay out of this! You know nothing about the human body, heart surgeon!

[Ravenshire]

religious atheists are funny   is it really so hard for you to say " i dont know " ?

Not at all. Unless it's a topic where we do in fact know.

[jenny1972]

when did i ever claim or suggest that my opinions were evidence ?

Pretty much every time you're asked for evidence for your claims, or clarification of your argument. All you ever keep saying is "The world seems complex to me, so it must be designed."

when i look around me i see complex organization everywhere doesnt appear random at all maybe you see disorder but i just dont

evolution and BB theory both indicate a complex intelligent design based on organization and not chaos [...]

yes im sure you dont think nature is amazing at all but i disagree and i think its very organized and coordinated and in my experience unthinking matter does not create complex designs but thinking beings do .

If those were not supposed to be arguments - why do you even keep going about these things, that you reckon to be so true and obvious, that they don't even require explanation? They're irrelevant and you're simply arrogant to think that stuff you cooked up in your head, based on ignorance and wilful misunderstanding of science and scientists, is of any use to anyone, as far as cognition of reality is concerned.

You need to read more, because your arguments and debating tactics would be embarrassing in high-school.

why would you call that evidence and not just my opinion ? i never claimed it was evidence in fact i kept telling you i didnt have evidence yet you kept repeatedly asking for it . this is not a topic anyone has any evidence for its all theory and opinion noone can prove or disprove you believe for your own reasons as i believe for my reasons . weve both stated why we have our opinions and what else is there to say the debate based on opinions and no evidence is over .