One plausible reason, based on currently discoverd facts, is some sort of evolution. Another, equally plausible solution is intelligent design. That is why I brought up the car example. I notice that you have utterly failed to address the points I made about why design is *not* an "equally plausible solution" for the nature of the observed evidence. "Designed" DNA would show significantly different features from evolved DNA. What does the DNA evidence actually show? It meets the predictions of evolution, not design. For starters, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html. That's just a portion of the ways that DNA matches evolutionary predictions. Then hit the "Contents" button for yet more ways (not just DNA) in which the biological evidence (both present, and past) closely matches evolutionary predictions, but for the most part clashes strongly with what would be expected from the results of "intelligent design".
Since you have not even attempted to refute them, the points still stand, and you are being less then honest with yourself when you then continue to declare that it is "equally plausible".
--In other words, all known biological systems and DNA sequences are so far consistent with an evolutionary origin.--
It's also consistent with a designer creating an environment and then creating a diverse ecosystem of plants and animals designed to flourish, self repair and self replicate.
Again, no it is not, unless you are talking about the most minimal amount of "intelligent seeding" at the beginning, followed by a hands-off approach that let nature take its own course subsequently.
--Gosh, food for thought, eh?--
It has been one of the main courses of my food for thought ever since I started debating this subject in 1982.
Then try debating it, instead of failing to address points made counter to your original statements. Honest debate either incorporates objections made to one's argument, or substantially rebuts them. "Debate" which simply ignores objections and rebuttals and then continues to repeat itself isn't debate, it's merely proselytization.
You have got to be kidding! You presume to judge the mind of God? You said, "'Designed' DNA would show significantly different features from evolved DNA."
My response: Maybe if YOU designed it. But you didn't, and I think who did may understand it a tad better than anyone within creation itself. I design computer programs. The simpler, the more elegant. I think creation is a wonder in its utter simplicity/complexity combination. It's like Christianity itself. That is, it is simple where people try to complicate it, and it is complicated where people try to simplify it.
Another thing. Lots of us have our favorite web sites supporting our opinion on both sides. There garbage on both sides as well. I haven't read ALL of them. But I haven't read the entire tax code either. I still know I have to pay my taxes.
Evolution (a general term if ever there was one) is a great theory. I think it is an interesting theory. My guess is that parts of some versions of it are ultimately right on, especially when dealing with micro-evolution. But to embrace the theory as FACT is, well, really bad science.
You mention matching predictions. Ptolomy's theory matched predictions - to a point - and it turned out to be utterly wrong from the very beginning (earth centered universe). It helps also if you change your predictions as new information surfaces. And in some cases, that IS what's going on with evolution theory.
The real problem with arguing against evidence for intelligent design and why it's not fair for me to argue too much is that just as evolution can try to solve its problems by throwing more time into the mix, ID people can argue that you cannot second guess a creator. Anything discovered can be arguably the way He designed it, if for no other reason than to cause the very confusion we are having now.
It's like adding a bolt to a piece of metal that doesn't hold anything together. It's just there, to confuse those who MUST DISCOVER it's original function. It's function is to keep them buisy for the creator to get a good laugh.
I don't address all your points because of time and the need for some semblance of brevity. And, quite frankly, some don't need to be refuted (or I agree with you).
You need to lighten up. The theory is not worthy to be RELIGIOUSLY defended...
"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." -- Genesis, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.