Replies

"Why would that be when intelligent design can be directly observed in many cases? You still have not answered either how science can define the difference between natural and supernatural, and why intelligent design must be supernatural. Do you consider all human implements to be supernatural since they are intelligently designed? Of course not. So why is some other arrangement of matter performing specific functions considered 'supernatural?' Is it just because the designer is not directly manifest and present to testify of involvement in the design process?"

I already addressed this and you keep repeating yourself - CSI has not been seen and has been shown to be both mathematically and biologically unsound.

Let's see you design and build a living, self-replicating object, and then we can discuss who the real idiot is. Oh, and be sure to avoid using intelligence or design in the process.

Amazingly, enough, we already have. Evolutionary algorithms? Of course, you skipped my point on ERVs and noncoding DNA, and pseudogenes. This indicates an unintelligent Designer, not an intelligent one.

I already addressed this and you keep repeating yourself . . .

That is because you keep asserting that complex, specified information (CSI) has not been "seen." An absurd proposition on the face of it, considering you know how to read. Or is that supernatural, too?

You were doing so well!... Then you just had to insert this bit: "This indicates an unintelligent Designer, not an intelligent one." I was so disappointed to read that assertion after you had so admirably listed many of the design specs Science has discovered in this extremely complex matrix of meaningful change from random events.