He decided to create a world in which there will be mystery; in which we can not understand many of the things that go on in it until after we leave this level and proceed to the next.
One of the mysteries being --- why does the living world look
(a) exactly like a product of evolution would
(b) as though any putative creator must be staggeringly incompetent?
Of course, these things are only a mystery to you. I know the answer.
Now, is that any more ridiculous to believe this, then to believe that a chaotic whirl of cosmic chemicals settled down in the right place in the right order to then cascade into a random spiraling of carbon mixing, using a mechanism that we don't know, and which have no empirical evidence for, and one in which we can just create just so stories about how a turtle turned into a Tiger then turned into a monkey, then turned into Richard Feynman-in a world perfectly tuned to allow this to happen, because we can also fabricate more just so stories about this being one of zillions of other universes that we can't see-but somehow some are more wiling to believe in than believe in a spirit?
Your strawman is ridiculous. Not to mention dishonest.
The current human eye isn't an intelligent design? What does it take to be considered of intelligence? Millions of cells lining the interior of each eye function as photochemical receivers that convert light waves into a myriad of electrical impulses, which are forwarded, at a speed of about 200 miles per hour, to the brain-and then sorted, organized, and analyzed. This is accomplished in milliseconds. What about the eyelashes, blink reflex and the eyelid protecting the eye? Pupils dilate to allow more light in for better vision at dim times and constrict to protect our retina from excessive glare and to improve daytime vision. All this sounds pretty damn intelligent to me. Is the eye perfect in every way, able to adjust from microscopic vision up to telescopic vision? No. When the eye is healthy, does it enable us to comfortably encounter life here on planet earth? YES. Its obvious the designer wasn't trying to design a super bionic body. If the designer is all knowing and all powerful, and he loves his creation then he must have a reason to have designed these bodies with weaknesses.
In short, things that look like good design are evidence for an intelligent designer but things that look like bad undesign aren't evidence against one.
So whatever the natural world was like, you could still claim to see intelligent design in it. If it had a thousand times more stupidity, cruelty and waste in it, you could still recite: "If the designer is all knowing and all powerful, and he loves his creation then he must have a reason to have designed these bodies with weaknesses", and not ever admit that you were looking at a series of screw-ups unworthy of a wise and benevolent God.
This has the dubious merit of ensuring that you would never have to notice that you were wrong in attributing nature to the work of such a God even if you were as wrong as wrong can be.
Ha, the "Real Theory of Evolution"! As if there even is such a thing. And a consensus none the less. What an even more gratuitous bit of nonsense.
A supposed theory which accounts for altruism except when it accounts for evil. Which accounts for slow minute changes, except when it accounts for rapid, extreme ones. Which accounts for beauty except when it accounts for ugliness. Which explains why species die out except when it explains why they didn't. Which explains disease resistance except when it doesn't. Which explains for strength except when it explains for weakness. Which is a tree of life, except when it is a bush. Which developed from a single lineage, except if it developed from multiple starting points. Which doesn't know what mechanisms drive it, except that it knows that it must be materialistic.
Spare me the pompous argument from, and of ignorance. Your Theory can't be proved wrong, because it doesn't even know what it says. Before you start telling me to know what it says before I disagree with it, perhaps YOU should first decide what it says-because so far, with each and every year that it changes, all it really says is, well, its materialistic in nature-but don't ask us why, or how, or how we know.
Your abject ignorance of the theory is not a weakness of the theory.
Of all your blithering nonsense, this bit struck me as particularly laughable:
A supposed theory which accounts for altruism except when it accounts for evil. Which accounts for slow minute changes, except when it accounts for rapid, extreme ones. Which accounts for beauty except when it accounts for ugliness. Which explains why species die out except when it explains why they didn't. Which explains disease resistance except when it doesn't. Which explains for strength except when it explains for weakness.
There are lots of other "supposed theories" which suffer from the same supposed weakness.
For example, the theory of electrodynamics explains why some things are conductors and why some things are insulators. It explains why some things can be magnetized and some can't.
The theory of gravity explains why some things (like apples) fall to Earth and other things (such as the Moon) don't. It explains why some things orbit the Sun and other things orbit Jupiter.
Chemistry explains why some things (such as chlorine) react with sodium and other things (such as argon) don't.
Damn, our evil atheistic science is in such a mess, isn't it? It's adequate to explain all phenomena, which is apparently a weakness.
So, please tell us about the superiority of intelligent design. Apparently to be a good theory, it must account for either beauty or ugliness, but not both. Which can't it account for? It can explain either strength or weakness, but not both. Which? It can account for altruism or evil: so please tell us which of these two aspects of reality it fails to account for. Does it explain resistance to disease or susceptibility to disease? --- for, as you have explained, a theory is no good if it can explain both.
Does creationism explain the Sun --- or the Moon? Cats --- or dogs? Salt --- or pepper?
Let us know when you guys have made up your minds.
I see, so you actually have a book that proves the exact lineage of man, from bacteria all the way until Richard Feynman?
As GM did not say or imply this in any way, I think we can safely assume that she hasn't.
I mean, its not like you would just make up that you know the path of humanity from flecks of sand to Feynman-right?
No, of course not. This is why GM never said any such thing.
Because that would be fucking stupid to make that claim. And you are not fucking stupid are you?
No, of course not. In this GM differs from the imaginary people whom you made up in your head.
Or perhaps its just that you are so brain-washed by your own believes, that you are only capable of repeating the same ritualistic mantra so famous for people of your mindset-"Just read a book, just read a book, I am a fucking stupid evolutionary robot, just read a book..."
If you are tired of people pointing out your gross and contemptible ignorance, and the obvious remedy for it, then the solution to this is in your own hands. Apply the remedy. Cure your ignorance. Learn something about the subject you're discussing.
Instead you get all cross and call people "fucking stupid robots" just because they can all see what's wrong with you and what you need to do to cure it. Really, this is your problem, not theirs.
If you were suffering from bubonic plague, would you throw a temper tantrum every time someone advocated the use of antibiotics?
Perhaps you would. And the consequences thereof would very nearly serve you right.
Well, its a good speech. When you actually HAVE facts to back up the extraordinary claims made by evolutionists it will be so much more convincing.
Wee have facts enough to convince biologists, who are familiar with the facts. But we will never have facts enough to convince someone who is disgustingly ignorant of the facts and who throws silly tantrums when it's suggested to him that he might learn something about the facts.
Of course, you can always just claim like Dr. A and Granny that the facts are all in a magic book, and then just run away from the responsibility of proving that.
You know, if you told fewer really stupid lies, people would be less inclined to think of you as a really stupid liar.
Again, we are using English, so I realize the challenges you also face; but yes, I agree, that is "fucking stupid" as you like to put it, but then many things Richard Dawkins says is stupid, so its no real surprise is it?
So, BTW, which chemical element are you claiming life arose from, since you also think Dawkins is so fucking stupid?
Why are you pretending that Richard Dawkins said that we are "descended from flecks of silicon"; and whom do you hope to deceive?
Did you mean dumb and redundant? Or perhaps ignorant and repetitious? Or in your language, those are two different concepts?
In the English language, to be ignorant is to lack knowledge and to be dumb is to lack intelligence.