Since chemical reactions occur on a longtime ongoing basis that involve completely inorganic processes and results, this definition would be very wrong.
Nonsense: name two inorganic reactions which are continuously occurring and are complex.
Somebody obviously doesn't understand the concepts of what "complex chemistry" and "in continuous action".
{aside: 'complex chemistry' could of course be a very clever pun, in which case you'd be entirely wrong to criticise it on the basis that inorganic reactions count. Complexes require the involvement of inorganics as any first-year chemist could tell you.
But I'm not going to equivocate on the issue, and take it that in this context "complex" = "complicated". Either way, you're still wrong.}
There is an extreme difference, in that ID is science based, and Christianity is faith based. For someone to be a christian, they must believe without evidence. For someone to be an IDer, one must accept the interpretation of scientific data as factual. The founding principles of either are complete opposite.
Bullshit. We've seen the early drafts for
Of Pandas and People. 'Intelligent design' is just another attempt at having religious propaganda inserted into science classrooms by fundamentalist godbots.
At every request for the supposed evidence, creotards like yourself have either ignored the question, attacked the asker or told us that we wouldn't accept it anyway. You're nothing new.
If you bothered to open a Bible for 10 minutes you would retract your statement before posting, since God only 'breathed' life into man, not into the animals: (babble-babble and rabbithole snipped)
At no point did AZPaul3 specify what was created. God breathed life into clay figurines, the exact same kind of woo that you advocate is resonsible for all life.
If you would read what people actually posted for
one minute, you would know what to respond with, instead of pre-fabbed quotemining.
God did many unusual miracles with inorganic objects such as rocks as well. I'm not sure if you were attempting humour in your statements, but if you were, it didn't work, and if you weren't, same result.
I'm not sure if you were attempting intelligence in your statement, but if you were, it didn't work, and if you weren't, same result.
™ Version 4.2
