Intelligent Design

[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?

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.

Yeah, we don't know the origin of the structures that in every way function like superior versions of designed structures. But we just can't suppose a designer, be that is just ignorance right? We MUST only consider options that are counter intuitive and natural, because we assume the answer can only be in those parameters right?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

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?

No emotions have ever been cause of the state of any pre-existing fact. You cannot make something real just by wishing for it, and just because something makes you feel happy and complete doesn't make it necessarily intelligent.

[ohreally]

This is one of my favorites...that God is by nature untestable, and that science can never apply to him.  Except we all know that if even a SHRED of anything resembling scientific evidence emerged to support ID, or miracles, or god's existence, every theist in the world would be creaming their pants screaming, "see?!  I told you so! It's SCIENCE! You can't refute SCIENCE!"  

There is plenty of evidence for ID, but that is not the same as PROVING the identity of the designer. I could sit back and wait for proof on anything, but the fact is you can prove very little scientifically. 

Prove to me right now that the sun will still be there tomorrow.

So what exactly are you measuring when you measure 'design'?  What are the methods to determine if something is designed vs not designed?

[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?

No it hasn't

-and if i present you with an example, will you stop all this foolishness, or will you...as I suspect...continue regardless?

[The Inquisition]

No proof here that a designer had anything to do with life, only that if a designer was involved, it would have been smarter than you. Which is profoundly challenging to ponder...

Show us the evidence, if you have some - your unintelligent assertions aren't getting you anywhere, and they never will!

Now why, for the thousandth time, would a designer waste billions of years on what appears to be nature taking its course over the same span? Stop being such a wuss on answering that question too!

I have pointed out the structures within the cell that we can only see produced from a designing intelligence. Repressor proteins, neurotransmitters, the need for proteins to produce other proteins. Proteins that move mRNA around in the cell, lysozomes, all the enzymes needed to metabolize nutrients. Helicases to unwind the DNA, telomeres to keep germline DNA from degrading. The outer membrane of the female egg that prevents further sperm from entering it after one fertilizes it to prevent polyploidy, which is detrimental to our function. Epigenetic factors influencing the shape of mRNA in a way that allows the same DNA sequence to produce variations of proteins. You can sit back and say it all evolved, but you would need thousands of mutations in order with the correct sequence of bases. And mutation events are very rare. Why does it seem like the universe is billions of years old? I don't think that is even close to the amount of time you would need to evolve everything we see.

No what you are doing, or Michael Behe is doing, is making evidence fit his conclusion.

You have to show that there is a limit to genetic manipulation that requires supernatural intervention. Where is this exact demarcation line?

Behe tried to draw this line at chloroquine resistance in malaria and was proven wrong.

[AAA]

There is plenty of evidence for ID, but that is not the same as PROVING the identity of the designer. I could sit back and wait for proof on anything, but the fact is you can prove very little scientifically. 

Prove to me right now that the sun will still be there tomorrow.

So what exactly are you measuring when you measure 'design'?  What are the methods to determine if something is designed vs not designed?

It's been said many times already, but it's the specified sequence of nucleotides and amino acids that are irregularly ordered and have a specific order that leads to a functional product. The intricate workings of the cells inner components is also something we look at. And the method to determine if it was designed is the method of historical sciences as outlined by Newton and comparing multiple competing hypothesis. We know that intelligence is capable of explaining these phenomena, but we have never observed these things coming from any other way.

[AAA]

I have pointed out the structures within the cell that we can only see produced from a designing intelligence. Repressor proteins, neurotransmitters, the need for proteins to produce other proteins. Proteins that move mRNA around in the cell, lysozomes, all the enzymes needed to metabolize nutrients. Helicases to unwind the DNA, telomeres to keep germline DNA from degrading. The outer membrane of the female egg that prevents further sperm from entering it after one fertilizes it to prevent polyploidy, which is detrimental to our function. Epigenetic factors influencing the shape of mRNA in a way that allows the same DNA sequence to produce variations of proteins. You can sit back and say it all evolved, but you would need thousands of mutations in order with the correct sequence of bases. And mutation events are very rare. Why does it seem like the universe is billions of years old? I don't think that is even close to the amount of time you would need to evolve everything we see.

No what you are doing, or Michael Behe is doing, is making evidence fit his conclusion.

You have to show that there is a limit to genetic manipulation that requires supernatural intervention. Where is this exact demarcation line?

Behe tried to draw this line at chloroquine resistance in malaria and was proven wrong.

I don't know where this line is, and it unfair to demand it. There are too many parts that all require each other to enter the evolutionary pathway. It's not that I am molding these things to look like they were designed, it is very apparent when you look at how they all work.

[The Grand Nudger]

-as I've said.  Fine.  If you want to call life designed thats fine.  Evolution is the "designer". More pedantically, the environment is the "designer". Done, right?

[brewer]

AAA, did your education come with any strings attached?

[The Grand Nudger]

More an issue of his strings having not come attached to an education.