DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[The Valkyrie]

Bullshit is proof of a bullshitter.

[robvalue]

So rocks are designed when it's convenient, and aren't designed when it isn't convenient. Is that about right?

Pretty much, additionally...you can tell somethings designed if it;s complex, or if it;s simple.

Also, he appears to be assuming his conclusion by just stating the whole universe is designed. Given that, he's precluded any possibility of having something non-designed to compare to.

What would a non-designed universe look like, I wonder? One where almost 100% of it was lethal to its life forms I suppose.

[GUBU]

You are so wrong on this one.  Extremely sophisticated information was found in DNA.  The debate is over.

What an incredibly poeish thing to say!

---

The scientific community disagrees with you.  51 percent of scientists are believers and 41 percent are non-believers based on a Pew poll result.  Once the stigma of ID wears old, I expect that number to increase even more for believers.  Also, 89 percent of people in the US believe in God based on a Gallup poll.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scien...nd-belief/
http://news.gallup.com/poll/193271/ameri...e-god.aspx

Many believers accept evolution. Including 100% of Catholics. So the fact 51% are believers is irrelevant.

There's at least one catlick who doesn't.  When he wasn't defending paedophile priests and monks, the nazi pope spent most of his time bigging up creationism.

[robvalue]

I wonder how he'd feel if a load of evolutionary biologists turned up and started telling him about about a bridge he was working on?

[Anomalocaris]

if a rock rolls down the side of a mountain and shatter in 50 pieces, an intelligent design moron would say that proves god because what are the chances that the molecules of that rock at the top could completely disassemble, disperse to the entire universe, and then randomly come together into that exact configuration of 50 pieces on the bottom.

Furthermore he would argue the universe is precisely fine tuned to allow 50 shards of rocks to exist in their precise configuration at the bottom of the hill because otherwise it is improbable those 50 pieces would be where they are and how they are.

When in fact it would have taken a truly stupid god to go through so much trouble to achieve what intelligent design morons think he achieved when the same result that could have been attained if that god just sat aside and masturbated and never did anything else.

Intelligent design is really a concept that envisions a monumentally stupid and wasteful god.

[Rhondazvous]

Pretty much, additionally...you can tell somethings designed if it;s complex, or if it;s simple.

Also, he appears to be assuming his conclusion by just stating the whole universe is designed. Given that, he's precluded any possibility of having something non-designed to compare to.

What would a non-designed universe look like, I wonder? One where almost 100% of it was lethal to its life forms I suppose.

1. A non created universe would look like the one in which we live. An intelligent creator would not create a universe where entropy is the end result of everything. Religious people would argue that things have to be destroyed so that they can be rebuilt again. Even if I conceded to a designer, such a being is far from intelligent.
An inelegant designer would not design a world where everything lives at the expense of something else, either as prey/predator or host/parasite.

For Christians to argue that the so-called fall of man affected the entire universe precludes not only this designer’s intelligence, but also his competence.

[GUBU]

I wonder how he'd feel if a load of evolutionary biologists turned up and started telling him about about a bridge he was working on?

The only Mr Inquisition is working on a bridge is if he's charging goats a fee to go over it.

[Joods]

ID and theology are separate topics although ID has religious implications as I have stated prior.

Bullshit.

The court in Kitzmiller v Dover found otherwise.

4.
Whether ID is Science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no
position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one
of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted
by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is
additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the
subject of testing and research.

Go peddle your theology elsewhere.  We are on to you.  And so is the court.

This was vs the Dover Area School District if I recall, pretty much right in my backyard. The local news went batcrap crazy over this.

[Rhondazvous]

Does anyone else find it odd that when science finds historical and cosmic discrepancies in religious text, theists say religion is beyond the jurisdiction of science. Yet, the theist tries to shoehorn religion into science classes. That's not just odd. That's disingenuous.

[Edwardo Piet]

"I"D is a stupid strategy dreamed up by various christards to get their favoured creatardism taught as science in schools.

Intelligent Design is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo

---

I wonder how he'd feel if a load of evolutionary biologists turned up and started telling him about about a bridge he was working on?

"London Bridge not only never really fell down but it evolved from the raft in the movie Castaway!"