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.
