Replies

Taxesareforever is correct and it is not an issue of character at all. Refusal to accept evidence is an act of will, an intellectual decision but certainly not a character issue. Such a claim, however, only requires a reading of the post in this thread to back it up. Evidence of intelligent design has been presented repeatedly and is repeatedly being discounted for one reason or another.

I am discounting what you present as evidence because by your own admission the evidence is meaningless, and can offer no actual assurance of reliability. You are using selected examples of intelligent interaction in some cases to assert that intelligent interaction is present in all cases, without providing any reason to accept that it must be the case.

Your argument is that in cases where it is known whether or not intelligent intervention is involved in "order" from "non-order", it is always the case that intelligent intervention is involved. The problem with this reasoning is that you have established criteria whereby it is impossible to establish that no intelligent intervention has been involved. As such, you have defined a scenario where it is only possible to know that intelligent intervention has been involved, and never possible to know when it has not been involved, no matter how many such cases there may be. You are attempting to use this filtered result as part of an argument, but you cannot, because it is impossible to know whether the "unknown" is a zero-value.

I have explained this problem with your reasoning numerous times, and I have even offered analogies to try and further explain the failing of your reasoning. Your refusal to respond to my explanations of why your logic is not valid does not mean that I will reject valid arguments in favor of intelligent design.

I am discounting what you present as evidence because by your own admission the evidence is meaningless,...

It is not meaningless and I never admitted such a thing. Where did I say my evidence is meaningless? If I thought it was meaningless, I wouldn't have presented it.

So, then what goes on in science labs is meaningless, too, because then all that order and complexity of a scientific experiment is just the result of random electrical impulses firing between synapses in a scientists brain complied with the random actions of said scientist. If order and complexity are not evidence of intelligence, than nothing in this world is and it is all meaninglessness and none of it can be trusted.

You are using selected examples of intelligent interaction in some cases to assert that intelligent interaction is present in all cases, without providing any reason to accept that it must be the case.

Again, not true. The reasons to accept that intelligent action is behind ALL order is because it's logical to presume so from precedent set by what we do know. It doesn't make sense to presume that there is none when there is no basis at all for coming to that conclusion.