The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

I hate to burst your little self-important whinge-bubble, but there are two reasons why Coyote won't even try to answer your complaints in a positive way:

1. The problems are problems for creationists. Coyote and many like him already have solutions to a lot of the problems which actualy matter to them. You are the one advocating the position with these problems; it is your job to fix them, not the critics'.
2. Matter is not eternal. It can be broken down into energy, and that energy can be dispersed, transformed a multitude of ways. I'm relatively sure somebody has pointed this out to you, so exactly why you continue belabouring it despite being wrong in your complaint is beyond me.

What experiments?
Oh, you mean the ones you want us to provide, to demonstrate support for some stupid strawman bullshit you are the only one believing in?
To quote the esteemed Doctor Evil: "how about no, you crazy Dutch bastard." Funny, most everybody else would have said the same thing about you.Rather than acknowledge that you're wrong, you just continue to restate the same mindless drivel and toss the same word salads that you tried a dozen times before. Rather than explain what you actually mean when no less than three different people have told you it makes no sense, you pack a tantrum about nobody else thinking rationally. Rather than cogitating somebody else's argument about why they conclude a different position to yours, you ignore it completely and whinge about their not being logical, a claim based almost exclusively on the fact that since you believe you are using logic to arrive at your position, any other position cannot be logical at all. Welcome to the world, dipshit, that isn't how logic works. Coyote isn't the one screaming about how science is utterly wrong because they won't accept your "evidence" and "logic" for design.You are the one who wants to show there are problems. You've failed to do this at all. Now, care to try again, with perhaps a little less condescending and a little more attempting to engage in useful discussion?Edited by Admin, : Fix list.

You mean a link like here? I found that link, I looked at that picture. It says what you are being told by everyone else.
Good thing it's only 1:30am here, otherwise I would not have been able to examine the first page of hits for the phrase "red sea topogrpahy" on Google Image search, huh?We now direct the jury's attention to exhibit A. See that big shiny strip right down the middle? It's dark blue and purple. We now observe exhibit B, a chart showing what depth is related to each colour.
Lo and behold, dark blue/purple is not representative of shallow waters. It is in fact, indicative of the exact opposite: deep, deep water. So deep that the weight of the water could crush you to death should you go even halfway down without a submersible vehicle.
At no point on the topography can one find any supposed "sand bar" in any location that would be considered valid as a crossing point. There is a fuck-off huge trench right down the middle* of the Red Fucking Sea. There is no sand bar across this trench. There was no crossing.So no sir, you are wrong, and quite emphatically so at that. Do you care to concede the point, or at the very least stop trying to fool people with the exact same internet capability as you?

So, DNA is what designed humans? About time we had an IDiot admit to what this mysterious designer's identity was. And all those years, it was good ol' DNA! Fancy that!
Okay boys, pack it up, we found out the origin of life now. You can probably expect your Nobel Prize in the next couple of years, Dennis, once someone has checked the working. I wonder, would it be chemistry or medicine; possibly even physics? Heck, why not two at the same time. It is a pretty major discovery after all. Another brilliant discovery! Not only did DNA design humans, the DNA itself is the design for humans! How marvellous of our creator to not only give us life in general, but give each of us life personally and individually too! I reckon your Babble was onto something with the whole "I am everywhere with you" thing.
Crikey, Dennis, you're on a roll with this! Don't stop just because it's getting late. Not all of your car is used for moving you around the place, yet would you say the point of the car is to cool you down or provide you a comfortable seat?
The other parts that help with doing the main job don't change what the main job is. DNA codes to (eventually, following the whole tRNA/mRNA thing) form proteins. That is its job. And many complex things that were not designed contain a storage of information. The neuron structure in your brain, for instance, was not designed. Pretty damn sure that would count as complex if we looked at the myriad connections and functions, though.
Point being, storage of information does not imply design. Nor does complexity. That's one reason to dismiss your argument as unreasonable right there. But continuing:By stating first that "if something is complex and designed, it has a storage of information or blueprint" then observing that DNA "stores"* "information"* and deriving the conclusion that therefore DNA was complex and designed, you commit a basic error. You're affirming the consequent; this is a logical fallacy.
So not only can you not conclude what you have based on the argument you have used, doing so is actually wrong in itself.And yes, the entire first half of the post was bitter satire. For fuck's sake, I managed to seriously justify the proposition of a designer using evidence, despite it being a parody. The best any IDiot has done, even with years of research, is "I can't believe evolution did that, must'a bin' magick."
Does it not strike you -- and here I add the general challenge: or any ID supporter at all -- as odd that a joke version of your own hypothesis has better support than the real thing?

A large amount of the thread was taken up by nonsensical ramblings about the nature of science and whether it deliberately excluded some possibilities to the effect of denying the validity of said possibilities. Counterexample and argument was presented to demonstrate that the basic requirement is of consistency, which could not be met by design proponents.Another significant amount of the thread was taken up by aforementioned proponents first providing terms, then being unable to provide a basis for the term; argument based on these terms was for all intents and purposes one of 'begging the question'.No unequivocal evidence for design was ever presented despite multiple opportunities. Questions regarding aspects of the pro-offered arguments and evidence were virtually ignored, with accusations of either deliberate dishonesty or incidental ignorance of this "evidence" following such questions.No system for determining design, beyond the typical "I know it when I see it" was ever presented, much less a reasonable alternate methodology, by those who were critical of the scientific method and the principle of methodological naturalism.
Examples were provided which could not be determined either designed or not. Indeed, objects which were known not to be designed could not be distinguished from those which were.This thread once again demonstrated that 'intelligent design' is no more scientific than its ancestral creationist dogma. Its only historic purpose was to subvert science education and knowledge to a religious agenda. Nothing presented here has altered that perception of the idea at all.