Oh, the observations are there alright. The evidence is just as stong, if not stronger, for intelligent design. It amuses me in a queer way to hear an intelligently designed being tell me there is no such thing as intelligent design involved is his existence. Galileo would be rolling his eyes. The proponents of ID are the modern day Galileos, and this time folks like you are on the side of ignorance.
You're begging the question, Fester. That's a logical fallacy.
Uh huh. Equally, the evidence is just as strong for wood sprites and Reynard the Fox and Rigelian lizard people, however, science is prejudiced toward selecting answers to questions that involve the least necessary leaps into assumptions about what we don't yet know.
It amuses me in a queer way to hear an intelligently designed being tell me there is no such thing as intelligent design involved is his existence.
I suppose then, that all post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments amuse you.
Galileo would be rolling his eyes. The proponents of ID are the modern day Galileos, and this time folks like you are on the side of ignorance.
Much bravado, little sense or evidence. At least you're consistent.
Please excuse me for saying so, but someone who has problems with basic scientific concepts is not in a good position to be accusing other people of ignorance. This is not to say that you can't have an opinion, but you should know that you are just not going to be considered an authoritative voice on the subject.