Total Posts:173|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent Design fail

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:20:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

I don't have a comment, but I do have a request:

Could you please stop publically identifying as a "Christian", since you don't believe a single claim recorded in the Bible?

Thanks.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:27:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

This is actually far more simple than that. If the universe requires a designer because it is so complex, then the designer of the universe also needs a designer, because the designer is more complex than the design.

And if the designer doesn't require a designer, despite being so complex, then certainly the universe doesn't require a designer either.

So the Intelligent Design assertion refutes itself.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:34:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:20:27 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

I don't have a comment, but I do have a request:

Could you please stop publically identifying as a "Christian", since you don't believe a single claim recorded in the Bible?

Thanks.

Who says the bible should be believed?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:37:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:20:27 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

I don't have a comment, but I do have a request:

Could you please stop publically identifying as a "Christian", since you don't believe a single claim recorded in the Bible?

Thanks.

Who says the bible should be believed?

That's irrelevant.

This guy calls himself a "Christian" but doesn't believe a word the Bible says.

Therefore, I'm requesting that he stop calling himself a Christian.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:59:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:37:06 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:20:27 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

I don't have a comment, but I do have a request:

Could you please stop publically identifying as a "Christian", since you don't believe a single claim recorded in the Bible?

Thanks.

Who says the bible should be believed?

That's irrelevant.

This guy calls himself a "Christian" but doesn't believe a word the Bible says.

Therefore, I'm requesting that he stop calling himself a Christian.

Who says a christian must believe the bible? Some sort of papal bull or such?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 12:02:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

Evidence??? Look that word up in your funkin wagnalls.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 12:40:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:59:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:37:06 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:20:27 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

I don't have a comment, but I do have a request:

Could you please stop publically identifying as a "Christian", since you don't believe a single claim recorded in the Bible?

Thanks.

Who says the bible should be believed?

That's irrelevant.

This guy calls himself a "Christian" but doesn't believe a word the Bible says.

Therefore, I'm requesting that he stop calling himself a Christian.

Who says a christian must believe the bible? Some sort of papal bull or such?

Logic and common sense.

But if you don't see that already, then I can't convince you.

Words apparently don't have any particular meaning to you.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 12:56:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

"Sufficiently complex" implies quantification. So how complex does something have to be to infer a designer, and what method are you using to characterize such complexity?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 12:58:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

I disagree and the science community disagrees. The mark of intelligence is the efficiency of the system, not the complexity. Complexity is often simply the result of replication with variation. That requires nothing more than interacting laws (interacting physical properties).

One look at the human eye rules out intelligent design. The same can be said of many other known biological structures. They indicate natural processes, not intelligent design.

If I were to place an electric drill in a forest filled with various biological forms, would you have any difficulty picking out the drill (the intelligently designed structure), from among the rest?

See how easy it is to separate that which is intelligently designed from that which "evolves" through natural processes?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:02:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 12:56:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

"Sufficiently complex" implies quantification. So how complex does something have to be to infer a designer, and what method are you using to characterize such complexity?

Argument from specified-complexity
www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20can%20you%20tell%20if%20something%20is%20designed.htm
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:16:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 12:58:27 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

I disagree and the science community disagrees. The mark of intelligence is the efficiency of the system, not the complexity. Complexity is often simply the result of replication with variation. That requires nothing more than interacting laws (interacting physical properties).

One look at the human eye rules out intelligent design. The same can be said of many other known biological structures. They indicate natural processes, not intelligent design.

If I were to place an electric drill in a forest filled with various biological forms, would you have any difficulty picking out the drill (the intelligently designed structure), from among the rest?

See how easy it is to separate that which is intelligently designed from that which "evolves" through natural processes?

The argument is of specified-complexity, not just complexity. One look at human eye rules out intelligent design? Could our best engineers possibly build a synthetic eye that is better than the human eye for the purposes the human eye is used for? Place a human body next to a drill. Tell me which is more evident of intelligent design.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:16:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:02:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/22/2014 12:56:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

"Sufficiently complex" implies quantification. So how complex does something have to be to infer a designer, and what method are you using to characterize such complexity?

Argument from specified-complexity
www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20can%20you%20tell%20if%20something%20is%20designed.htm

In actuality, one of the signatures of design is complexity which is reduced to the minimum to perform the necessary functions. Greater complexity is often an indication of non-intelligent interacting processes. Why would an intelligent agent choose to include excess complexity in its designs?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:21:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:16:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/22/2014 12:58:27 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

I disagree and the science community disagrees. The mark of intelligence is the efficiency of the system, not the complexity. Complexity is often simply the result of replication with variation. That requires nothing more than interacting laws (interacting physical properties).

One look at the human eye rules out intelligent design. The same can be said of many other known biological structures. They indicate natural processes, not intelligent design.

If I were to place an electric drill in a forest filled with various biological forms, would you have any difficulty picking out the drill (the intelligently designed structure), from among the rest?

See how easy it is to separate that which is intelligently designed from that which "evolves" through natural processes?

The argument is of specified-complexity, not just complexity. One look at human eye rules out intelligent design? Could our best engineers possibly build a synthetic eye that is better than the human eye for the purposes the human eye is used for? Place a human body next to a drill. Tell me which is more evident of intelligent design.
No contest. The drill wins, hands-down.
Are you slightest bit familiar with the human eye? One would have to guess that you're not. Even a fairly simple D-SLR demonstrates many portions and features which help to demonstrate that if there were a designer for the human eye, that designer not only wasn't intelligent, but quite nearly qualified as retarded.

Need I walk you through a point-by-point comparison? I'll be happy to do so if you still believe the human eye is some kind of marvel of photographic achievement. In comparison to a very basic camera, it's a pure atrocity. A camera designed on the capabilities of the human eye would be an instant laughable failure.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:31:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:16:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:02:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/22/2014 12:56:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

"Sufficiently complex" implies quantification. So how complex does something have to be to infer a designer, and what method are you using to characterize such complexity?

Argument from specified-complexity
www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20can%20you%20tell%20if%20something%20is%20designed.htm

In actuality, one of the signatures of design is complexity which is reduced to the minimum to perform the necessary functions. Greater complexity is often an indication of non-intelligent interacting processes. Why would an intelligent agent choose to include excess complexity in its designs?

Excess complexity would mean that we have many unusable or pointless features. Would you agree that we don't have many unusable or pointless features?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:44:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:21:32 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:16:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/22/2014 12:58:27 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

I disagree and the science community disagrees. The mark of intelligence is the efficiency of the system, not the complexity. Complexity is often simply the result of replication with variation. That requires nothing more than interacting laws (interacting physical properties).

One look at the human eye rules out intelligent design. The same can be said of many other known biological structures. They indicate natural processes, not intelligent design.

If I were to place an electric drill in a forest filled with various biological forms, would you have any difficulty picking out the drill (the intelligently designed structure), from among the rest?

See how easy it is to separate that which is intelligently designed from that which "evolves" through natural processes?

The argument is of specified-complexity, not just complexity. One look at human eye rules out intelligent design? Could our best engineers possibly build a synthetic eye that is better than the human eye for the purposes the human eye is used for? Place a human body next to a drill. Tell me which is more evident of intelligent design.
No contest. The drill wins, hands-down.
Are you slightest bit familiar with the human eye? One would have to guess that you're not. Even a fairly simple D-SLR demonstrates many portions and features which help to demonstrate that if there were a designer for the human eye, that designer not only wasn't intelligent, but quite nearly qualified as retarded.

Need I walk you through a point-by-point comparison? I'll be happy to do so if you still believe the human eye is some kind of marvel of photographic achievement. In comparison to a very basic camera, it's a pure atrocity. A camera designed on the capabilities of the human eye would be an instant laughable failure.

If we polled 100 people and asked them which is more intelligently designed: a drill or a human body, what do you think they'd say?

And yes I'd like to see the superior designs we have for making an eye better than the human eye for the purposes the human eye is used for.

"The human eye also has a lot more pixels than your camera, about 130 million pixels (you 24-megapixel camera owners feeling humble now?). However, only about 6 million of the eye"s pixels are cones (which see color), the remaining 124 million just see black and white. But advantage retina again. Big time."

"The macula contains about 150,000 "pixels" in each 1mm square (compare that to 24,000,000 pixels spread over a 35mm x 24mm sensor in a 5DMkII or D3x) and provides our "central vision" (the 55 degree cone of visual attention mentioned above). Anyway, the central part of our visual field has far more resolving ability than even the best camera."

http://petapixel.com...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:45:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:31:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:16:45 AM, Beastt wrote:

In actuality, one of the signatures of design is complexity which is reduced to the minimum to perform the necessary functions. Greater complexity is often an indication of non-intelligent interacting processes. Why would an intelligent agent choose to include excess complexity in its designs?

Excess complexity would mean that we have many unusable or pointless features. Would you agree that we don't have many unusable or pointless features?

No, I most certainly would not agree. The human body is a pure museum of excess complexity, poor system structures, absurd methodologies and other traits common to evolution through natural mechanisms.

If you were designing a camera, would you connect the communications port to the sensor in the middle - thereby disabling a large number of photosites in the center of the image, and then resort to complex software to attempt to replicate the missing portions of the image? Or would you attach the communications bus to the side of the sensor, allowing all of the photosites to function properly in gathering luminescence and chroma levels, and pass them to the processing modules, without having to build complex image regeneration routines into the image construction processes?

A camera captures the image across the entire sensor (except when reduced resolution is desired), while the human eye has a blind spot in the approximate center of the retina where the optic nerve is attached. The eye isn't able to see the portion of the image focused on this blind spot, and instead relies upon excess complexity in the visual processing centers of the brain.

I'm quite willing to give you more examples if you wish; from the limited focal view of the eye, to it's inability to retain clarity and flexibility in its focusing system, and the blind spots created by blood vessels partially obstructing the pathway the light must travel to the retina, which again requires sharpening techniques and image estimation routines in the brain, requiring more energy diversion to the visual processing regions.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 3:59:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:20:27 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

I don't have a comment, but I do have a request:

Could you please stop publically identifying as a "Christian", since you don't believe a single claim recorded in the Bible?

Thanks.

I believe in the bible. I believe it offers a moral way to live and that we end up going to heaven when we die. I also believe Jesus Christ was the savior who died for our sins and didn't die for the elect. I believe that due to linguistics, science and history, we can't take the bible literally. Most theologians and scholars agree with this. For if we are to take the bible literally, then we would be like the Christians who killed in the name of Christ and claimed that it was from the bible. Hitler believed he was finishing the work of Jesus. Army of God bombed abortion clinics. The Verse that they use to justify, "Think not I come to bring peace, but a sword." You can argue that it's not to be an actual sword, but the Word of God, but that's you not taking the bible literally. So your pretty much being a hypocrite if I'm supposed to take Noah's Ark and Adam N Eve literal, yet you won't do the same over one thing Jesus said.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 4:01:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:44:43 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

If something if sufficiently complex and specified it infers an intelligent designer. Inferring intelligent design is based on evidence, not ignorance.

What evidence provides intelligent design to be true? What about the designer himself who is so complex? Doesn't he require a designer? If not, then the universe doesn't.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 4:49:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 12:40:47 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:59:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:37:06 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:20:27 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

I don't have a comment, but I do have a request:

Could you please stop publically identifying as a "Christian", since you don't believe a single claim recorded in the Bible?

Thanks.

Who says the bible should be believed?

That's irrelevant.

This guy calls himself a "Christian" but doesn't believe a word the Bible says.

Therefore, I'm requesting that he stop calling himself a Christian.

Who says a christian must believe the bible? Some sort of papal bull or such?

Logic and common sense.
Talking snakes, talking donkeys, dragons, giants, witches, angels, is this the logic and common sense you refer too?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 9:30:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:45:29 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:31:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:16:45 AM, Beastt wrote:

In actuality, one of the signatures of design is complexity which is reduced to the minimum to perform the necessary functions. Greater complexity is often an indication of non-intelligent interacting processes. Why would an intelligent agent choose to include excess complexity in its designs?

Excess complexity would mean that we have many unusable or pointless features. Would you agree that we don't have many unusable or pointless features?

No, I most certainly would not agree. The human body is a pure museum of excess complexity, poor system structures, absurd methodologies and other traits common to evolution through natural mechanisms.

If you were designing a camera, would you connect the communications port to the sensor in the middle - thereby disabling a large number of photosites in the center of the image, and then resort to complex software to attempt to replicate the missing portions of the image? Or would you attach the communications bus to the side of the sensor, allowing all of the photosites to function properly in gathering luminescence and chroma levels, and pass them to the processing modules, without having to build complex image regeneration routines into the image construction processes?

A camera captures the image across the entire sensor (except when reduced resolution is desired), while the human eye has a blind spot in the approximate center of the retina where the optic nerve is attached. The eye isn't able to see the portion of the image focused on this blind spot, and instead relies upon excess complexity in the visual processing centers of the brain.

I'm quite willing to give you more examples if you wish; from the limited focal view of the eye, to it's inability to retain clarity and flexibility in its focusing system, and the blind spots created by blood vessels partially obstructing the pathway the light must travel to the retina, which again requires sharpening techniques and image estimation routines in the brain, requiring more energy diversion to the visual processing regions.

My favourite example is the birth canal, but the most compelling are all the wasted genes (pseudogenes) which number in the hundreds/thousands.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 11:09:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:02:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Argument from specified-complexity
www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20can%20you%20tell%20if%20something%20is%20designed.htm

Well that did nothing to address my questions. "Specified complexity" is not a quantification nor method of characterization for complexity. Perhaps you could answer in your own words, demonstrating that you have some understanding of what you're talking about, rather then just dumping a link?
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 12:03:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 4:49:44 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/22/2014 12:40:47 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:59:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:37:06 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:20:27 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

I don't have a comment, but I do have a request:

Could you please stop publically identifying as a "Christian", since you don't believe a single claim recorded in the Bible?

Thanks.

Who says the bible should be believed?

That's irrelevant.

This guy calls himself a "Christian" but doesn't believe a word the Bible says.

Therefore, I'm requesting that he stop calling himself a Christian.

Who says a christian must believe the bible? Some sort of papal bull or such?

Logic and common sense.
Talking snakes, talking donkeys, dragons, giants, witches, angels, is this the logic and common sense you refer too?

Again, irrelevant.

Try sticking to the point.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 12:38:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 12:03:21 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/22/2014 4:49:44 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/22/2014 12:40:47 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:59:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:37:06 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:20:27 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

I don't have a comment, but I do have a request:

Could you please stop publically identifying as a "Christian", since you don't believe a single claim recorded in the Bible?

Thanks.

Who says the bible should be believed?

That's irrelevant.

This guy calls himself a "Christian" but doesn't believe a word the Bible says.

Therefore, I'm requesting that he stop calling himself a Christian.

Who says a christian must believe the bible? Some sort of papal bull or such?

Logic and common sense.
Talking snakes, talking donkeys, dragons, giants, witches, angels, is this the logic and common sense you refer too?

Again, irrelevant.

Try sticking to the point.

That's a question I'd like to ask. Can animals talk? Do you believe in witches and dragons?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:02:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 1:45:29 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:31:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/22/2014 1:16:45 AM, Beastt wrote:

In actuality, one of the signatures of design is complexity which is reduced to the minimum to perform the necessary functions. Greater complexity is often an indication of non-intelligent interacting processes. Why would an intelligent agent choose to include excess complexity in its designs?

Excess complexity would mean that we have many unusable or pointless features. Would you agree that we don't have many unusable or pointless features?

No, I most certainly would not agree. The human body is a pure museum of excess complexity, poor system structures, absurd methodologies and other traits common to evolution through natural mechanisms.

If you were designing a camera, would you connect the communications port to the sensor in the middle - thereby disabling a large number of photosites in the center of the image, and then resort to complex software to attempt to replicate the missing portions of the image? Or would you attach the communications bus to the side of the sensor, allowing all of the photosites to function properly in gathering luminescence and chroma levels, and pass them to the processing modules, without having to build complex image regeneration routines into the image construction processes?

The eye design is actually quite a bit smarter than you realize - what it does is to have a small high definition area that is coupled with a sophisticated mechanical system so that the hi-def area can be aimed at the speed of thought. The bulk of sensors are for low def motion sensing.

Having an eye full of hi def sensors, as you suggest, would NOT be efficient design.

I find these kind of arguments are always arguments from ignorance and/or incompetence. The appropriate response to this kind of amateur nonsense should be "so show me - build a better human eye and demonstrate your point". But of course, human technology is light years from being able to build a better eye, yet evos somehow miss the implication of that obvious fact.

And my $.02 on the complexity = design thing: The essential ingredient of design is intent. There are perfectly rotten human designs that are still designs. I could give you some hilarious examples of hillbilly duct tape design, but they're still design. It's a common logical fallacy to suppose that apparent defects in life's design rule out a designer. Though, as I say, I think these examples of supposed flaws are always bogus. Another logical fallacy is not recognizing the difference between a design flaw and design tradeoff. The latter is a consequence of the finite nature of the laws of nature, not necessarily a lack on the part of the designer. A truck that can carry large loads will get less mpg than a motorcycle, even when empty. This is not bad design, just a consequence of physics.
This space for rent.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 1:51:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I"m not familiar with Intelligent Design thinking or theology, don"t really care, but life requires instruction or the matter is a dormant mass affected by its environment. I wouldn"t say DNA is the source of the instruction but is a result of it. Therefore then, where does the instruction come from, and why is the result the presence of life and living, and not a dormant mass?
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 2:07:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:27:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

This is actually far more simple than that. If the universe requires a designer because it is so complex, then the designer of the universe also needs a designer, because the designer is more complex than the design.

And if the designer doesn't require a designer, despite being so complex, then certainly the universe doesn't require a designer either.

So the Intelligent Design assertion refutes itself.

If God was bound by the laws of logical thought, then He wouldn't be God.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 2:14:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Which religion? Intelligent Design can be used to support the belief in a deity of any kind, or at least the supernatural.

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

So a spiritual God cannot be responsible for anything that happens in a physical universe?

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

A more appropriate analogy would be "this Algebra equation is so complicated that it cannot be just a bunch of random letters and numbers put together. Somebody must have thought up this equation." Now, please stop beating up on strawmen.

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

Once again, the implication is that the complex car was designed...by something intelligent, which includes humanity.

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

Your "Christian faith" is so far removed from actual Christianity that there is little point wasting my time with you.
Also, please learn what Intelligent Design actually means before trying in vain to bash it.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 2:41:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 2:14:07 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:02:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
(I know this may be a "Scientific Theory", but let's get real. It's religion wearing a mask.)

Which religion? Intelligent Design can be used to support the belief in a deity of any kind, or at least the supernatural.

Like Kent Hovind and other creationists, they try to say that because of the complexity of individuals, the world and DNA, it is proof that God exists and evolution is false. But I thought of something. "We are thinking about the DNA. I'm looking at it for the first time. It's so complex. GAWD DID IT!"

So a spiritual God cannot be responsible for anything that happens in a physical universe?

This is what I see going on between the Intelligent Design movement.

Pretty much, the argument is like this.

"This algebra equation is so complicated. I can't figure it out right now. The equation equals. God. Because it's so complex. I will so get an A on this test."

A more appropriate analogy would be "this Algebra equation is so complicated that it cannot be just a bunch of random letters and numbers put together. Somebody must have thought up this equation." Now, please stop beating up on strawmen.

"How can I put this car together? It's so complicated and difficult to understand and learn about. Wait! It's complicated like our DNA, God can just build this car."

Once again, the implication is that the complex car was designed...by something intelligent, which includes humanity.

I would like to hear some comments on this issue and for others who have other ideas of creationist arguments that are similar to the two I've posted, i'd like to see what y'all come up with. I could use a laugh.

Your "Christian faith" is so far removed from actual Christianity that there is little point wasting my time with you.
Also, please learn what Intelligent Design actually means before trying in vain to bash it.

Here's what Intelligent Design is. It's the belief that science can explain God. And like you mentioned, which God. There is nothing scientific in the bible, especially since it talks of a man who got swallowed by a whale for 3 days and managed to live.

Here's why I have Christian "faith". I say, I "believe" that God made everything, which of course through natural selection and adaption. I don't claim to "know" God made everything. Nobody "knows" anything about God or the events of the bible because the events were similar to other religions in the past. So I will only say I believe, when making super natural claims. I will never say I know, because I would be lying and therefore sinning and sending my butt to the wall of hypocrites who shame their so called Christianity.