[Fester Chugabrew]

It was an incorrect example . . .

It is a weak example, which I freely admitted. But it is hardly "inconceivable" that the basic elements would lose their cohesiveness or properties that allow us to intelligently distinguish them from one another. The best evidence against intelligent design would be the disintegration of all particle matter into chaos. So, intelligent design is a strong theory. Much stronger than evolutionism, which essentially says little more than "naturedidit." Intelligent design may reasonably be posited as the cause behind all the matter man has been able to observe and contemplate. Another evidence against intelligent design would be the absence of humans to observe and comprehend reality. That hasn't happened yet either.

Now if you want to change the subject to matters of absolute proof as opposed to evidence, then I will concede that the theory of intelligent design falls short. By that standard so does the theory of evolution.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It is a weak example, which I freely admitted."

No, it's actually completely wrong. Static on the TV is in no way an example of matter losing it's *cohesiveness*.

"But it is hardly "inconceivable" that the basic elements would lose their cohesiveness or properties that allow us to intelligently distinguish them from one another."

Sure it is.

"The best evidence against intelligent design would be the disintegration of all particle matter into chaos."

Which would destroy us and leave nobody around. It's inconceivable that this will happen.

" Much stronger than evolutionism, which essentially says little more than "naturedidit." "

No, evolution says that those natural processes which we can observe and test are responsible for the descent with modification of organisms over time. ID says that something we can't observe or test (a designer) does something we can't observe or test on matter. It's mystical nonsense.

"Another evidence against intelligent design would be the absence of humans to observe and comprehend reality. That hasn't happened yet either."

Now you've traveled beyond absurd. Hate to tell you, the universe doesn't depend on people's observations for it's existence. Also, you are positing an impossible condition as a *possible* evidence against ID. You are way WAY beyond self-parody.

"Now if you want to change the subject to matters of absolute proof as opposed to evidence, then I will concede that the theory of intelligent design falls short. By that standard so does the theory of evolution."

ID has no physical evidence either.