A proof against ID and Creationism

Er, I'm sorry? Wasn't ID formulated to explain the existence of complex beings? In what way is bkelly misapplying your theory?

What spiritual beings? I'm not aware that ID makes any sort of distinction between physical and "spiritual" life. It's just a theory that explains complexity, right? That the only origin of complexity is intelligence? Complexity is complexity. Doesn't the designer have to be complex as well?Sounds like there's a lot about your own theory you're not aware of. I don't see how bkelly is misapplying the theory at all.

The entire theory is the equivocation of complexity with intelligence. If intelligence is the source of complexity how can intelligence not be complex?Surely it's not lost on you that, among ID's defenders, the example of the complexity of human intelligence is a common example of something evolution is not supposed to be able to complain? If intelligence isn't complex why are all the ID guys telling me that it is?Like I said there appears to be a whole lot about this "theory" that you're not aware of. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on a theory you don't seem to know much about?

Well, that's clearly wrong, now isn't it? If that's true then where do all the new kinds of organisms come from? I mean, congratulations on having a ten-year-old high school textbook, but those aren't exactly known for their accuracy, now are they? Pasteur didn't test an environment; he tested some broth. So what did he prove? That organisms don't spontaneously generate from broth. I don't know of any geologic or biochemical evidence that proposes that the primordial Earth was covered in broth, so it's not clear to me why you think Pasteur's experiment is relevant, or somehow proves for all conditions and all environments that abiogenesis is impossible.

It's my understanding that the theory explains informational complexities, or at least, the complexity always seems to be expressed in those terms. I'm not familiar with any specific formulation in the theory that restricts it to information complexity of physical objects; it's just that ID's proponents resist its application outside of the mundane to avoid exposing the flaw that bkelley laid bare in his OP.

Don't cook much, I guess?

What evidence from design leads you to this conclusion?

It didn't seem too ambiguous when you tried to defend him against ID's obvious flaw. Then we have to conclude that some complex entities can exist without being designed, which falsifies the inital premise of ID. ID is self-refuting.

I think the relevant question is if ID considers intelligence to be complex; I don't myself know for sure but I find it rather unlikely that anybody would describe intelligence as simple.

And, again, there's nothing in ID that suggests that the designer is eternal, or that an eternal designer can even exist; so this doesn't really do anything for me as an answer to the challenge in the OP.

But it doesn't ascribe to that god any more properties than ID implies; that is, the intelligence to design.If you think that god has additional properties than that, then I'd like to know how you're getting those out of ID.

Ancient people were ignorant, not stupid. Keep in mind that we somehow manage to explain 200 years of biological science to adolescents in about nine months of 50-minute classes.I'm not trying to detract from your original point, and it's certainly the case that it took us 200 years to learn what we know now because that's how long it takes to discover what we know now.But once somebody knows it, it's easily learned, I think. A reasonably intelligent adult of any time period could be easily taught state-of-the-art biology, presuming that they could already read.

Because evolution is a theory of biology, and the origin of life is a problem in chemistry.Different fields of science. Evolution explains the history and diversity of organisms that reproduce variant offspring. The chemical origins of life begins with things that don't do that. Hence, evolution does not apply to them, and so they're not relevant to the study of evolution. And evolution takes you back to the first population of genetic organisms. Farther back than that you need to ask a chemist. Farther back than that, you need to ask a astronomer (about planet formation.) Farther back than that you're talking to astrophysics (about solar system formation.) And farther back than that you need to pick the brain of a cosmologist (about the Big Bang.)Evolution is just a theory in biology that explains the history and diversity of life on Earth. It's not a theory about the origin of life, or the formation of planets and stars, or the expansion of the universe. Those are different fields alltogether.

What you said was "I have yet to see a missing link." If you could see it, how could it be missing?You've just asked to be shown something that, by definition, you can never see, because as soon as we find it and show it to you, it's not what you asked for. I think that would be a mistake, if you're here to learn things. If you're here simply to spew ridiculous arguments, I guess you can do what you like. But you're pretty quickly going to be doing that by yourself if that's your only aim.

Well, she didn't say "before." What she said is that the default gender of human beings is female.And she's correct. When sex differentiation in the developing fetus is interrupted or disabled, the resulting human is female. When gonadal tissued develop absent a sex "command" from other parts of the developing fetus, they, on their own, develop female.Mutations on the Y chromosome that disable the SRY genes result in females. No mutation on any X chromosome causes maleness.As near as we can tell, the developing fetus proceeds down the "female" direction until the SRY genes send a signal to proceed towards maleness; if that signal never arrives - as a result of not having a Y chromosome, or having a defective SRY gene, or other happenstance - the resulting human is female.