What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Amarok]

Of course ID is fallacious reasoning to you

No it's fallious period no matter who you are . Fallacies are not a matter of opinion .Fallacies don't care how creative or inventive you are . There as obvious to a dullard as the are to a genius . 

that's the whole point of what I'm saying,

You have no point just games

you don't have to prove what you think,

I already stated the fallacies ID has. And that it's proponents have yet to give evidence of it in nature that does not rely on fallacies .

you've made that pretty clear.

The thing i have made clear is ID is fallacious 

You cannot possibly see ID if you don't have it.

Lol that's rubbish if ID were real the evidence would stand as would it's reasoning . Regardless of the person .  

When you ask for evidence, that's like a person who can't read demanding that the book reveals itself.

Nope when i ask for evidence it's like a person asking for evidence and sound non fallacious reasoning   .And a fraud saying you need magic hex vision to see the fallacious as not fallacious . "you just have to imagine the emperor has clothes on and that he's not naked " That's essentially you . 

Unless of course you can show that you are inventive, creative etc.

Nope if ID is real it should not matter it should be obvious to anyone from the most creative to the least . And the reasoning  should be sound and without fallacy. This game does not work on me . Show ID fallacies are not fallacies or i will have to conclude your defeat . 

As i said i have patients for your games. At least most other ID advocates like Jonathan Wells or  Michael Behe don't need to resort to such piss poor distractions. They actual deal with their critics . Instead of insisting that your creative talents are prerequisite to understanding ID or criticizing their ideas . And hold that the ID inference is available to anyone. I may think their dishonest clowns but i can at least respect them for that. A respect you will never have.

---

He thinks the ability to design man made  things gives people magic powers to see ID in nature as not fallacious bunk and baseless film flam . And intelligence as a bane to bad reasoning .

Aye, and if he was in anyway interested in finding the truth ™ of ID he would know that its proponents Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson et al, have openly stated the designer they refer to, is God.
Hoist with their own petard springs to mind, but then Christian fundies don't do irony.

Yup i may think all they above are dishonest loons . But thier at least loons who do ID right . They make a case . They provide evidence . They actually address fallacies their critics point out . And at no point do they say . "You have to be an artistic genius to get their theories or criticize them" . They may suck at all they above . But at least they have the balls to do it . Unlike banned the coward who resorts to games to hide his idea's flaws.

[Banned]

I already stated the fallacies ID has. And that it's proponents have yet to give evidence of it in nature that does not rely on fallacies .
The thing i have made clear is ID is fallacious 

Because you are unable or unwilling to give any evidence of your intelligence and ability to appreciate design, I don't expect you to accept or understand ID.

Telling me that "ID is fallacious" just confirms it.

[Amarok]

Because you are unable or unwilling to give any evidence of your intelligence and ability to appreciate design,

Yup the same predictable speil and dodge . "You must be a tailor to see the emperor's clothes  And not see that he is naked " 

I don't expect you to accept or understand ID. 

"You can't see emperors clothes " because your not a tailor sure you can see his ass and penis but he's not naked" Because your not a tailor" 

Telling me that "ID is fallacious" just confirms it.

I have not just told you. I have pointed out the fallacies . You clearly have no defense . Or you have addressed them already . Like far brighter far more influential members of the ID community like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells or Douglas Axe have tried. And would not resort to this game . 

The emperor has no clothes and you have no argument . 

[Succubus]

Are you reading my mind. I only just now thought of this:

Imaginary Fabrics.

[Fake Messiah]

I already stated the fallacies ID has. And that it's proponents have yet to give evidence of it in nature that does not rely on fallacies .
The thing i have made clear is ID is fallacious 

Because you are unable or unwilling to give any evidence of your intelligence and ability to appreciate design, I don't expect you to accept or understand ID.

Telling me that "ID is fallacious" just confirms it.

[Amarok]

This book (which i have read ) makes a (failed ) case for intelligent design. it's a book for layman for anyone . Nowhere does it say "this book will only be reasonable and well argued and provide a case  If your davinci or some great genius of our age"Because unlike banned it authors were not cowardly little shits who need to play games to get their point across .

[He lives]

 Bold added by me.
Perhaps you could tell the scientific community how you did it so they won't have to spend so much time and money trying to figure out the human genome.

*my underlining*

What part of self assemble don't you understand?  When I say new organisms self assemble I am ruling out that they are put together through external agency, my own included.  New organisms literally put themselves together by way of chemical transformations dictated by the DNA.  No part of putting a fetus together is directed by the intentions or actions of the parents, and nothing is required of any gods, pixies or birds/bees either.  It is a very complex chemical process known as sexual reproduction.  Once the sex cells of the parents come together the chemical reactions which direct the assembly of the new organism are astoundingly complex but no external agency is required.

It was God that gave the chemicals their properties. It is amusing that you think it is by happenstance that such an amazing transformation takes place naturally. To me that is just ludacris.How can you deceive yourself into believing this nonsense?

---

Although anecdotal evidence is not proof, it is still evidence. It has spawned large research projects at hospitals in many countries. I am confident that the proof is there and is forthcoming. I wonder if any atheists will engage in this research.

Bold tales are also evidence.  They are full of information.  They just don't conform to the truth in any reliable way.

Your hypothesis of self creation does not conform to reasonable logic. The complexity of DNA is absolute proof of ID over happenstance.

[GrandizerII]

Your hypothesis of self creation does not conform to reasonable logic.

He didn't argue that things create themselves. The argument is that chemistry is a thing ... that happens ... naturally, without the need for divine intervention.

The complexity of DNA is absolute proof of ID over happenstance.

There's no absolute proof here (in a world of large numbers, even what is deemed improbable is possible), and nobody is arguing for spontaneous generation (which is what it seems that you mean when you say "happenstance"). So quit repeating the same old same old, and listen to what we're actually saying. You might end up learning something for a change.

[Ravenshire]

Isn't that his default answer to everything . Along with his other fallacies . Which let's face it is ID in a nutshell. Bad reasoning and ignorance  parading as science .

ID is recognized by intelligent people who are able to design as well.
You have yet to prove that you are qualified to make a comment on ID.

Have you ever designed something from nothing but your ingenuity?

By not recognizing ID in nature, you are proving that you don't have either, but I'd be pleased if you could prove me wrong, simply by giving evidence of your creative skills and achievements.

ID is recognized by the willfully ignorant, the intellectually dishonest and the morally bankrupt.

---

He thinks the ability to design man made  things gives people magic powers to see ID in nature as not fallacious bunk and baseless film flam . And intelligence as a bane to bad reasoning .

Aye, and if he was in anyway interested in finding the truth ™ of ID he would know that its proponents Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson et al, have openly stated the designer they refer to, is God.
Hoist with their own petard springs to mind, but then Christian fundies don't do irony.

---

The watch asked the watchmaker.

Dodge noted.

If you can dodge an argument,

You can dodge a ball.

[He lives]

Your hypothesis of self creation does not conform to reasonable logic.

He didn't argue that things create themselves. The argument is that chemistry is a thing ... that happens ... naturally, without the need for divine intervention.

The complexity of DNA is absolute proof of ID over happenstance.

There's no absolute proof here (in a world of large numbers, even what is deemed improbable is possible), and nobody is arguing for spontaneous generation (which is what it seems that you mean when you say "happenstance"). So quit repeating the same old same old, and listen to what we're actually saying. You might end up learning something for a change.

It might be thought … that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood. 

— Francis Crick

Happenstance is just another word meaning abiogenesis. The whole premise behind abiogenesis is happenstance. The hypothesis is that conditions were just right for life to come about by extraordinary means. However due to the amazing complexity of the DNA molecule, abiogenesis is an impossibility just like it is an impossibility for nature to create a encyclopedia when there is a windstorm with lightening. I don't think you really understand just how improbable abiogenesis is.