Intelligent Design?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, look at the parts and how they are put together and work
together doing different things, but these things combined get
the car functioning as a means of transportation. Look at life it
too has various systems and they do different things, but working
together to get if functioning. Look at the car it has temperature
regulation on some of its part ...[text shortened]... uch more complex manner it does too
and the list goes on and can go on if you want more.
Kelly

So you have shown that cars and life share some properties. But you do not explain why those properties are indicative of design. If it was a known fact that they were then you would not have needed the car example in the first place. In fact if life is not designed then it proves that those properties are not sufficient to indicate design.
So, pick one of those properties and explain why it is indicative of design.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you have shown that cars and life share some properties. But you do not explain why those properties are indicative of design. If it was a known fact that they were then you would not have needed the car example in the first place. In fact if life is not designed then it proves that those properties are not sufficient to indicate design.
So, pick one of those properties and explain why it is indicative of design.

You really need to be told why a car is designed?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That may not be true, but you say it as if it were, and that alone
makes you ignore what could be design in life? So you see what
you want, and ignore what could also be true! What you see in life
are systems far more complex than those in a car, what you assume
is that they came together over time by themselves and no design
was ever required.
Kelly

In another thread you yet again brought up irreducible complexity as weak evidence against evolution. I responded with a a peer reviewed paper and an excellent book source, both showing how life is NOT irreducibly complex.........

Guess what, you ignored the post (which surprises no one).

I'm not going down the same avenue again with you, as you obviously have no ambition to actually learn answers to the questions you ask people. You are just being obtuse.

Of course I ignore what has ZERO evidence for or even a single testable prediction i.e. ID / creation, only stupid people ignore evidence over myth.

Start providing either of the above and I will quiet happily and without bias consider your evidence...... but lets face it KJ you are never going to provide any, all you will do is produce vague statements, misdirections, side steps etc

Until then, 150 years of evidence and testable predictions yet to produce 1 false result will remain the best and only explanation at this time.

Care to start producing evidence for your claims?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You really need to be told why a car is designed?
Kelly

Yes I do.

You have in the past claimed that you do not lie and that your believe what you say. I find it strange therefore that you frequently do what you are doing now and avoid answering certain questions. Isn't that deception as well as an admission that you do not in fact believe some of your statements?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The thought of Intelligent Design is not other than the religious Creationism.
It has nothing to do with science.

Right. Thirteen pages of posts on a topic that does belong here, but should be in the Religion forum instead.