[Dimensio]

Rational people operate with given assumptions, and honest people admit them.

And your "given assumption" happened to be your conclusion, meaning that it made for a piss-poor argument platform.

Yep. I take the propositions of the Book of Genesis at face value.

Which is the problem. Your justification for doing this is the attempted conclusion of your argument. You are using a presumption of your conclusion to support your conclusion. That is not logical.

There is nothing about the words contained therein that negates, or contradicts, my obervation of an orderly universe. I figure it had to come from somewhere.

And so, upon making this arbitrary decision that "it had to come from somewhere", you arbitrarily decide that the Book of Genesis has an accurate explanation, then you arrogantly present your unfounded assumptions as established fact.

Like I said: ID isn't science. It's question-begging non-science.

I've seen a good many intelligent beings in my day. I've asked a few of them if they thought, with all of their intelligence, they could build a working tree, and so far none of them have replied in the affirmative.

And this is evidence of what, exactly?

Why would they even answer that way if they hadn't tried it? Why don't you give it a try? Or are your somehow limited in the intelligence needed to do so?

How do you know that intelligence is even required? You don't. You're assuming it and then presenting your assumption as an established fact backed by evidence. That's dishonest.

I would especially like to see someone build a tree without the aid of intelligence or design.

But you've already established that you don't know anyone who can build a tree in the first place.

You, apparently, are of the belief it can be done.

You're the one arguing that intelligent design produced trees. Once again you engage in the fundamentally dishonest tactic of demanding that all of your unfounded assumptions be accepted as established fact and insisting that everyone else prove you wrong. Science doesn't work that way, but I'm not surprised to see your tactic; creationists on FR by and large are shameless liars.

So much so, that you are willing to have your belief preached as empirical science.

Once again you engage in shameless lying. This is why I don't argue with you. You can't find a single post that I made that will support your position, but you will make this claim. I have nothing more to say to you. You have already fully admitted that ID is not scientific, and you have also demonstrated that you are not above lying to make a point.

[Fester Chugabrew]

And your "given assumption" happened to be your conclusion . . .

Every assumption entails a conclusion. Assumptions are starting points, basic givens, points of view, premises, what have you. Yes, I begin by having concluded that the words of Genesis are true. When a proposition is made and accepted, then certain conclusions are implicit and explicit. So yes, I assume and conclude at the same time that God created the heavens and the earth in six normal days, and that He continues to sustain them to this very moment.

What is your basis for asserting differently about the origins and purpose of the universe? Do you even have any basis? Do you really believe you are operating without any assumptions or conclusions? If so, you've fooled yourself well, but you don't fool me.

I begin with a "conclusion," and I admit it. Is it a problem if I take your words at face value? Am I assuming a conclusion in so doing? Or must I subject all your statements to the rigors of scientific method before I accept them as true or false or somewhere in between?

And so, upon making this arbitrary decision that "it had to come from somewhere"

Such a decision is far from arbitrary. It would be arbitrary if I had a multiplicity of choices and then spun a spinner to make my choice. This one is about as basic and important as it gets. It is neither an arbitrary decision, nor it is one to be made arbitrarily, because it ultimately governs how I view the universe and interpret what it brings to my reason and senses. If you want to see the essence of "arbitrariness" at play in science, consider the semantic tap-dancing done in the name of "natural selection" and "random mutations;" the late and recent magic wands of evolutionary philosophers.

How do you know that intelligence is even required [to make a tree]?

I infer it from the fact that no other intelligent agent with which I am familiar admits to having the necessary tools and intelligence. What is it that prevents you from making a tree? Is it just a matter of the right mutations and natural selection occuring? What is it that prevents you from making a tree? What is there about a tree that you can design and implement without the aid of intelligence?