What proof does Inteligent Design offer? (ritual, moral, Creator, Earth)

[kbc_1963]

here is an evidence of I.d.

the oldest evidence of life shows complexity as intricate as we are today and there is no proof that it evolved in any way which from a purely scientific angle is evidence for I.d. but i'm sure you will dismiss it just as you do with my abio thread.

[Mr Spinkles]

Proof that chemical beginnings of life are possible:

1) All organisms are made out of chemicals
2) Wait.....we're done!

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

here is an evidence of I.d.

the oldest evidence of life shows complexity as intricate as we are today and there is no proof that it evolved in any way which from a purely scientific angle is evidence for I.d. but i'm sure you will dismiss it just as you do with my abio thread.

No - it is not. Evidence that something is not red is NOT evidence that something is blue. There is nothing you have said that gives credible evidence of Intelligent Design.

I ask you one more time to provide the evidence - the scientific evidence - that Itnelligent Design is worthy of consideration instead of cluttering the thread with your off-topic posts.

-pah-

[kbc_1963]

Proof that chemical beginnings of life are possible:

1) All organisms are made out of chemicals
2) Wait.....we're done!

sounds intelligent to me so your house and car and roads and everything else can be attributed to the same possible beginnings. you must be the brightest bulb in the natural house huh?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by kbc

sounds intelligent to me so your house and car and roads and everything else can be attributed to the same possible beginnings. you must be the brightest bulb in the natural house huh?

Cars, houses and roads did have chemical beginnings...cars are made from metals, houses from bricks and wood, and roads from concrete and asphalt...even the organisms (humans) who interacted with these chemicals are themselves made out of chemicals. Supernatural entities, on the other hand, are not observed in the process of road construction.

"Brightest bulb in the natural house"? Although I'm not sure exactly what this means, I'm guessing it was a crude attempt to insult my intelligence. Please note that not only are personal attacks a poor method of argument, they are against the forum rules.

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Proof that chemical beginnings of life are possible:

1) All organisms are made out of chemicals
2) Wait.....we're done!

Thanks Spinkles.

[kbc_1963]

Well gentlemen and I use the term very loosely,

You have tryed every method possible to bypass empirical evidences provided by science for backing Intelligent design but mainly you say that I.D. or GOD is not a possible consideration because he isn't apparent or testable by science.
So let us look at this together and answer these questions if you have the guts to answer honestly.

Is it possible that life could have been designed?

If you deny the possibility that life could have been designed what do you base the assumption on?
any assumtion that would deny would mean you know everything and have not missed anything.

Is it possible that an Intelligent designer could exist beyond sciences current ability to detect?

If you deny the possibility that an Intelligent designer could exist what do you base the assumption on?
any assumtion that would deny would mean you know everything and have not missed anything.

What is more probable random chance or intelligent design of complex interacting structures?
what empirical evidence could be provided to show that complex interacting structures can occur by random chance?

I submit that if it is possible that life could have risen by nature/ chance as you believe without empirical evidence to prove what you believe then it is equally possible for me to theorize without proof of existence an intelligent designer using the same beliefs you use to assume nature/ chance.
So untill you guys can show empirical proof that life could not have occured by design then the possibility of it must be considered in any figuring, because to not include it is to deny science the ability to factor in a possibility which means you are intentionally denying it to avoid the possibility that your biased opinions are wrong.
At this point you have no evidence that an intelligent agent does not exist, I however have empirical evidence that random chance could not possibly have been the agent of cause that initiated life according to all known theories by science and I invite anyone to bring to the table any theory that would back random chance as possible, so I can show you just how impossible it is.

Pah you can tell me this is off topic all you want and you can deny it all you want but this is truth and no matter how much you try to squeeze out of the inevitable answer that must come from this both you and your little buddies cannot deny that as long as I.D. is possible then my GOD is possible and the fact that you can't currently disprove his existence will not make his hand in creation any less possible, otherwise you would be just like the people that believed the world was flat because they couldn't see the curve.

No - it is not. Evidence that something is not red is NOT evidence that something is blue. There is nothing you have said that gives credible evidence of Intelligent Design.

That would of couse be true if there were more than 2 options but as I see it there is only 2 options random or intelligent, do have more possibilities?

I ask you one more time to provide the evidence - the scientific evidence - that Itnelligent Design is worthy of consideration instead of cluttering the thread with your off-topic posts.

and I will tell you 1 more time that complexity is a basis for proof of I.D. and the fact that life appears suddenly in the fossil record and is already complex also backs that assumption and your biased opinion will not in any way remove the possibility of I.D.
without empirical proof, so you guyz can keep on dismissing my argument and deny anything said by anyone just remember you were not the first to deny common sense argument you are merely a continuation of the flat earth society and they also denied empirical proof when it first came about too.

[kbc_1963]

1) All organisms are made out of chemicals
2) Wait.....we're done!

are we done?
can you prove empirically that just because something exists and is composed of chemicals then it must have happened by random chance?
I can prove by empirical evidence that many things that never existed by randomness have been created by intelligence and they are composed of chemicals as well so I have proof that creation by intelligence is possible even tho the agent is not apparent.

[The Voice of Reason]

KBC -

Stunning, absolutely stunning. You've converted me. With scientific proof like that, Pah, Linwood, and Spinkles have no choice but to join me in supporting ID as a factual, scientific law. I'm sure we will all be campaigning to have ID taught in science classes across the country.

Hey - I've always wanted to believe that Santa Claus was real - can I apply this logic to him as well? I want him to be real, no one has scientifically proven that he does not exist, therefore, he must be real. Anyone that does not agree with me must be a fool.

Notice that I did not use the term "Gentleman" - not even loosely!
Also, if there is someone in this argument that should belong to the Flat Earth Society - it is you.

TVOR

[Mister Emu]

Let's just end this.

Neither Abiogenesis nor ID are based on any observable fact. Each "could" be possible, it is a matter of where you put your beliefs, I along with other ID put our faith in a intelligent designer, non-ID put faith in chance and luck. Neither is more scientific and neither is provable(even if we could recreate life from some sort of primordial ooze in a lab it does not prove that life on earth began that way, just as if we started life on another planet would not prove ID)