Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

There are problems buried in the above. They are not new though.1) How could we conclude that they cannot have developed through natural processes with out being in the position of giving an argument from ignorance? We know a lot more than we did 200 years ago but we still know far from everything about natural processes.2) What do we mean by "non-natural"? Supernatural or just a natural intelligent agent? If it is a non-supernatural intelligent agent then it is acting through some selected natural processes. They would just be different than garden variety evolutionary processes. Even "artificial" selection acts through the usual evolutionary processes. We can't tell from the ongoing development of, say, dogs that it is not natural selection (can we?). We only know because we see the designer acting but the designer only selects from existing forms just as the environment does.We might be able to tell if we were testing for genetic engineering though. Maybe that is what should be looked for.If we did we'd recognize it in a number of ways:1) a discontinuity in the genetics. This could take many forms but even some of them can be natural. I guess it isn't totally impossible for a virus or bacteria to carry a bit of fish DNA into ourselves for example.More obvious would be the insertion of DNA that comes from no where else in any present or known past organisms. In other words a real discontinuity. Right?2)A different basic mechanism such as a different genetic code altogether. Artificial life?

We got some. Mammals were 'smart' enough to be small when the asteroid destroyed niches needed by animals that were too large. How do we know it isn't just dumb luck?

Actually a good thought (intended) you have there. So what would it be?We'll have to do this ourselves, 99.98 % of creationists (and a larger percentage of our sample here) aren't exactly well equipped for a thought experiment.

Actually no. see Distinguishing "designs"The design we see is exactly NOT the kind that intelligence causes.

But (Message 94 it has been pointed out to you that it doesn't look created. Living things look exactly like things not created.You seem to be missing that point entirely. Along with a lot of others.

For the last time: They are exactly the wrong kind of complexity. They demonstrate the results of a non-intelligently driven process that we know about and have shown to produce this kind of outcome. You've never responded to this point though it's been pointed out to you more than once.You seem to be unable to deal with the actual issues so you ignore them.

So God took a few tens of millions of years to create life? After he already had spent 100 million years experimenting with some multicellular forms? After he'd spent about 3 billion years getting single celled life right?Is that what you mean?

Beretta, you forget. We know better. It does you no good to repeat falsehoods here. It only makes you look either ignorant, stupid or dishonest. (or any combination of the three).I suggest you start getting your facts straight before repeating this kind of junk.

To repeat for the 5th or 6th or somethingth time:The "design" you are pointing out is the proof against intelligent design. It is exactly the wrong kind of result.You yourself keep supplying the proof. You have totally ignored this.