Intelligent Design explains many follies

Perhaps I can offer a bit of insite here 1: the puzzleOthers have noted some of the trouble with you analogy. In addition, puzzles have one right way to be assembled. The components of life have multiple ways. One can not make statements about how unlikely they are until one knows all the "acceptable" outcomes.In addtion, why did you pick 50 pieces? If the minimal imperfect replicator that size; bigger; smaller?2: The computer
Computers do not f**k. Any analogy for life processes that does not involves imperfect reproduction with selection is NOT an analogy for evolutionary processes at all. Therefore this is useless as a point of discussion.

It is not folly if one has demonstrated a process which can produce apparent design without a designer. This is the case with biological organisms.As far as the universe and inorganic matter the correct answer right now is that how it came about is unknown. If you wish to pin your faith on a question remaining unanswered that is your choice. Many more sophisticated believers consider this to be a very bad choice theological.What is unknown in this context is, today, a matter of ultimate origins. Very difficult to grapple with. Your approach to an answer seems to be that of those of the ancient Mediterranean: Thor in his volcano, Zeus throwing lightening bolts and Apollo riding his chariot across the sky each day. Pretty primative from the theological perspective don't you think?

This might prove to be a bit subtle to you but let's try:If you want this analogy to be extended then the humans who designed the evolutionary algorithm would correspond, in your mind to the god who designed the laws of physics back at the initiation of the universe.If you want to argue that God did that there is no proof that he didn't. If you are very lucky there may never be.However, that has NOTHING to do with biological evolution. The ID argument is that biological creatures can not evolve because those processes can not do what the evolutionary algorithm proves they CAN do. If you wish to move to the position of a theological evolutionist there are only some here who will bother arguing with you.Somehow I don't think you want to do that. However, I'll be surprised if you get what the analogy is about here.

You are, as usual, (maybe as always) are incorrect in almost everything you post. It is however, not really worth trying to get it through to you.Your reply has, as always, little or NOTHING to do with the content of the post you are replying to. You seem to have a problem sticking to a point.

Also incorrect. The problem is that you need to attempt one rather challenging action.You need to open your eyes.

In fact one does NOT have to stop. There is considerable work going on to try to determine how things started. With ID (like all past religious explanations) we stop. Excuse me? The designer is a capitalized "He"? This is exactly what the whole ID movement exists to avoid. If the designer is God then it is an utterly non-scientific approach and doesn't belong in a science class. The ONLY reason that the ID movement exists is to get into the science class.

John: What would you think of me if I started critisizing the Bible and it was obvious from what I said that I had NO IDEA at all about what was contained in the Bible. If it said that it said Christians should be cannibals because someone told me that a friend told him that it said that.Before you start critisizing something you need to have some facts straight. Your posts show that you have very close to ZERO knowledge of the science involved. Your friend's friend doesn't know what he is talking about. This is an example of needing to be sure of your facts. You have from a few to perhaps a hundred mutations. So do I. The human race alive now contains maybe 100 BILLION mutations. Mutations are not "somewhat rare" at all.The other thing you need to do is to think things through a little bit before you post things that have answers which should be screamingly obvious. For example: Have a go at thinking that through yourself and see if you can come up with a sensible answer before someone points it out to you.

What an absolute brilliant answer! Good for you. You do a good job of representing one particular part of the debate.

Your posts cover IC but there is also the fact that Inkorrect is, again, incorrect about ID persons accepting almost all of evolutionary theory including an old earth and the relationship between other primates and man.

Sorry RAZD, I worded that poorly.It is my understanding that the mainstream IDists all agree with almost all of the biologists on almost all of evolution. That is what Inkorrect is wrong (again) about. But I don't think we have shown him that yet.They disagree (all of them I think) about abiogenesis and a few specific steps of some evolutionary pathways. That's all I've seen.Of course, they are careful to not be too clear on what they agree with. If they do as you say they have to accept too much for their creationist friends or they show how unscientific they actually are.