@Dan From Smithville - that was some pretty funny stuff. Thanks for the chuckle.
Do you not notice how you proved my point. Every thing you mentioned took ID to make and make our lives better and more comfortable ie by ID.
Yes, electric lights and the polio vaccine were intelligently designed. I listed the achievements of science in response to your comment, "
The big majority of science consenses [sic] doesn't make truth. Never has or will." My point was that the validity of science is based in the evidence of its successes, not on consensus.
Why did you think it important to make the point that man is an intelligent designer? That fact does not support the hypothesis that a god intelligently designed our universe. Just because we design and build computers doesn't imply that boulders or clouds or volcanoes are intelligently designed. Did you think otherwise?
That is exactly what you find in nature with plants and animals and humans and individual organs and how they all must work separately but together so the plant or animal or human etc is able to live and exist.
Still not an argument for an intelligent designer. There is no known reason that nature could not have accomplished the same feats without an intelligent designer, and several good reasons to suspect that none was involved. Every system from a solar system to a living cell to a single atom appears to be on autopilot, and can be seen to self-assemble without the intervention of intelligence.
Nebulae condense, stars and planets form in roughly spherical shape, the smaller objects orbiting the larger ones in ellipses under the rule of mindless gravity. No intelligence needed.
Fetuses self-assemble in wombs without an intelligence directing their growth from a single-celled zygote into a full-term animal. You might say that an intelligence was needed once upon a time to get life going and evolving, but once again, although you might be correct about an intelligent designer having a part in that, there is insufficient reason to conclude that you are.
And atoms go about their business according to assorted statistical and chemical laws with nobody needed to put charge the electrons, put them outside the nucleus, nor make the atoms bond with one another to form molecules.
All of these things go on around us automatically without help - with no apparent celestial assistance.
Evolution try's to sell me all that functional design came about without an ID. That does not compute.
I still don't know what you mean by functional design in nature. What I see is matter in motion through space and time under the guidance of blind forces, as when DNA is transcribed and translated, or evolves over generations.
You're using a verbal sleight-of-hand to attempt to admit an intelligent designer in through the back door.
Functional implies purpose, and
design implies a designer, which begs the question of whether an intelligent designer exists by assuming so in the premise that there exist natural objects that have an intended function and a designer.
What's the functional design of Saturn and its moons and rings? What's it's function? What makes this arrangement of matter a design rather than just form?Those are just empty words unless one is discussing something that was intelligently designed with a specific function in mind, like an automobile.
except for their "word" they can't and never will be able to prove that concept of functional design can occur without Intelligent Designer
Nor do we need to prove that an intelligent designer might not exist. It's enough that it might be the case.
You should probably lose that word
proof. The way you use it degrades your arguments and undermines your credibility, as does your inability to understand the place of proof in science however many times it is explained to you.
Any comment on that - why you can be told something, you don't question, challenge, or in any other way acknowledge what you have been told, and come back and make the same error? How much confidence do you think people should have in a person who behaves like that? What should others think about your ability to learn, or the quality of the ideas you hold? You want to be taken seriously here - you want to be heard - but the message that you broadcast is that you don't understand what you read and that you have no method for recognizing or correcting your errors even when spoon fed that correction.
There is no science lab test or experiment etc that can prove that ever so important principle that evolution stands on
The theory of evolution is correct in the main, and though it is likely to be tweaked in the fullness of time, it will not be overturned, just like the heliocentric theory. If you understand why our solar system will never again be seen as the sun and planets orbiting earth as was once believed, then you can also understand why evolutionary theory's place in science is so secure. It's settled science.
Creationists are fighting a losing battle, and not because of Gestapo tactics as you suggest, but because they don't have a compelling argument for why we should replace a useful, robustly-evidenced, scientific theory with a religious belief that can be used for nothing.
I've asked you that question previously, and you chose to not answer, which is fine. It's a rhetorical question, a statement in the form of a question. Nobody would do that, and it is unreasonable to expect otherwise, but knock yourself out trying if you feel the need.
while happening they are unfit until finished so Nat Selection is trying to kill them off.
That is incorrect. Fitness refers to the ability of a biological population to thrive in a given environment defined by climate, the availability of scarce resources such as food and mates, predators, etc.. If a population can persist through multiple generations over an extended period of time, then it can be said to be adequately adapted to that environment, that is, fit for survival.
If the environment changes, the population's relative fitness may change as well. But at all times since the first life on earth, the ancestors of the living things we find today weren't in the process of becoming fit. They were all and at all times fit enough to survive or those descendants wouldn't have been born.
Natural selection isn't trying to kill anything. It's not a volitional agent.
Natural selection is the phrase that refers to the fact that there are winners and losers in the fight for survival.
