Intelligent Design

[God of Mr. Hanky]

[quote pid='1174718' dateline='1452876099']
 Also, natural selection is not oppositional to God, it is a mechanism to keep populations strong.

[/quote]

You cannot prove that point either. Natural selection isn't an ointment which prevents decay, and why would your god, the all-wise designer, need anything like that?

[The Grand Nudger]

100 pages of IDiocy.  OPA!

[AAA]

It's also the method, in concert with mutation, by which speciation is achieved.  That's what's meant by "modern synthesis", colloquially known to you as "the theory of evolution".  Not exactly alot of room leftover for magic there, I'm afraid.

Yeah, everyone who's taken 8th grade biology knows the supposed mechanism of natural selection coupled with mutation. The question is whether or not that mechanism is actually capable of explaning what we see. Mutations are rare, and expecting hundreds at one time and in a row, and in the correct sequence is unlikely.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not a question.  It's been observed to occur both in the field and in the lab.

QED, why are you still here?

[AAA]

[quote pid='1174718' dateline='1452876099']
 Also, natural selection is not oppositional to God, it is a mechanism to keep populations strong.

You cannot prove that point either. Natural selection isn't an ointment which prevents decay, and why would your god, the all-wise designer, need anything like that?
[/quote]

Again you can't prove anything. At all. The more wild type organisms (original genome) will outcompete the mutant. Natural selection selects the more original organisms (with the exceptions of extremely modified environments), which is more consistent with a top down approach to life than a bottom up approach.

[AAA]

It's not a question.  It's been observed to occur both in the field and in the lab.

QED, why are you still here?

No it hasn't

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You know what, I keep telling people that there is tons of evidence that I am the greatest lover ever, but for some reason people just wont believe me.
Dicks the lot of em.

The evidence comes from the genetic code, RNA, proteins, and the way the three interact. All are useless without the other. It is statistically impossible for these to all arrange themselves independently of each other, at the same place, at the same time, in a way that allows them to interact with each other. You will all respond with "Oh, well you just have to wait for a naturalistic explanation before you can accept that intelligence played a role." yet we already know that intelligence is capable of producing these types of systems. So why is it illogical to say it was likely designed?

Because it's illogical to draw conclusions just to fill the gaps in your knowledge?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

The evidence comes from the genetic code, RNA, proteins, and the way the three interact. All are useless without the other. It is statistically impossible for these to all arrange themselves independently of each other, at the same place, at the same time, in a way that allows them to interact with each other. You will all respond with "Oh, well you just have to wait for a naturalistic explanation before you can accept that intelligence played a role." yet we already know that intelligence is capable of producing these types of systems. So why is it illogical to say it was likely designed?

I'll tell you why it is illogical.
It is illogical because there is no difference between - assuming it was designed by an intelligent being and assuming it was designed by my penis.
My penis can produce intelligent beings that can formulate and implement intelligent designs. So, I ask you, why is it illogical to assume that my penis, that is capable of achieving such amazing feats is not the designer of this universe?

Joking aside, that is the reason people resort to

We don't know.

. Because it is equally illogical to assume there was an intelligent designer behind everything - or to assume that it was all a result of a natural process.

We. Don't. Know.

We might know today, perhaps tomorrow, but not. right. now.

edit;
if you're going to ask for evidence for my penis. ready you inbox.

[brewer]

AAA, if you start banging your head against a wall it may help. Other than that your chances look dismal.

[AAA]

The evidence comes from the genetic code, RNA, proteins, and the way the three interact. All are useless without the other. It is statistically impossible for these to all arrange themselves independently of each other, at the same place, at the same time, in a way that allows them to interact with each other. You will all respond with "Oh, well you just have to wait for a naturalistic explanation before you can accept that intelligence played a role." yet we already know that intelligence is capable of producing these types of systems. So why is it illogical to say it was likely designed?

Because it's illogical to draw conclusions just to fill the gaps in your knowledge?

So in other words, we must do whatever we can to explain the design phenomena without appealing to the most obvious and consistent cause?