Ok, granted. But they are all dogs. All of the animals that I named were all dogs. That is my only point.
You didn't name any animals, I did. And I mentioned "Dingo and 37 other subspecies". A dingo is not a dog, even though it is a subspecies to gray wolf, just like the dog.
The so called evidence that you showed could mean common designer, as I keep pointing out. I could argue once again, that the designer used the same blueprint in making his creation, which is why you have similiarities.
The evidence that I provided you with points towards evolution. If that immense amount of evidence doesn't make you see clearly, then nothing will. And as I said: Of cource it
could be a designer. But nothing suggests it. If we new that a hyper intelligent, omnicient being existed, then it would be logical to at least take it into account. This is not, in itself, a proof of that. You're assuming what you wan't to prove. You assume that an intelligent designer exists, therfore he could be the source of life, and therefore all life has the DNA, and therfore God must be the cause.
Second, as I pointed out before, humans have four more chromosomes than a bat, so does that mean that a bat is four chromosomes away from being human? Of course not.
So? There is more than the number of chromosomes that specify a species. It's not like Armadillios and the Guinea pig are the same species just cause they have the same amount of chromosomes.
You can look it up anywhere!!! This is an established fact that the Miller-Urey experiment didnt prove life from non-life.
Of cource it didn't prove it, I know that. I merely showed you that there are suggestions out there (although no theories) about what could have happened. What I mean is that it's not like you have to choose between ID or the Miller-Urey experiment. Again, the lack of proof doesn't suggest ID.
There is no, and there will never be no kind of naturalistic explanation for how life can come from non-life.
lol... that's what the religious people have been saying since the beginning of time. "There will never be a naturalistic explanation for thunder. It is so obvious that it is Thor, the god of thunder that is the source" or "There is no way that that big ball of light in the sky could ever be explained, it is obviously the god Helios in all his glory"
Do you realize how arrogant it is, now when we have the explanation? That is why future generation will laugh at our ignorance, because of the people that thought that we had reached our limits regarding the naturalistic explanations of our Universe and life.
I will tell you why you refuse to accept it, because you are aware of its religous implications.
False. ID doesn't have any religious implications. If it were to be proven that ID was correct, we would still be completly ignorant regarding the will of this intelligent designer, if he even cared, if he was even still here etc. ID is often covered up in alot of (mostly christian) religious bullcrap but in itself it doesn't imply any religion at all.
You know that Intelligent Design points towards a transcendent Creator,
Nope, not that either. Not if you, by transcendent, mean in regard to a materialistic universe. It could, as I said earlier, just as likely be aliens.
This "we dont know" crap wont cut it. You guys are playing the "It is only designed until it points to a transcendent creator" game. It is silly.
It's logic reasoning, and I am aware that it is in your eyes regarded as silly even though you try to use it all the time. If we don't know, then we don't know. There is no evidence of design, no matter how little evidence there is for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life. The lack of naturalistic explanation for thunder, a few hundred years ago, was no more a reason to believe in an intelligent thundergod than your example.
Even if you hypothesize aliens with a blueprint, guess what, you are still hypothesizing intelligent design. All you did was shift the label of "designer" to aliens instead of God. Creationists are saying that this specified complexity comes from a being of intelligence, just like anything else in the world that we can clearly see were designed. We dont believe that lifeless, inantimate, blind, unguided, and unintellible objects or entites can create things as complicated as space shuttles or airplanes. And to be frank, SCIENCE doesn't even tell us this as of yet, and it never will
Ok. Then why don't you believe it was aliens?
I will wait for another silly naturalistic explanation to make an ATTEMPT to explain these things. I already have my answer to these questions. My answer is found in Genesis, where God created the heavens and the earth, and he created the beast of the field and the birds of the air.
Yes of course... and bats are birds, and man made from mud, and women from mud and a rib, and you can fit all species of the earth on noahs ark, and people can rise from the grave and it's possible for some human to walk on liquid water, and it's possible to... lol... just lol
Um, nothing in science is guided, so what are you talking about?? The assembling of a cell was in fact a blind and unguided process. There was no intelligent being placing the amino acids in the right sequence to create a protein molecule.
Um... it's called the laws of physics, and as you might have realized during your life, they're hard to mess with. Try break them and you'll see. It's not random that when you drop a pen, it falls towards the middle of the earth until it hits something. It will happen every time. And it's not random that the right molecules were formed during that and that sort of condition. It is forced to happen by the laws of physics. What might seem a bit random is that the earth happened to have the right conditions, but when taking into account how many planets there is out there it's not that strange that at least one ended up with the right conditions for life.