Jaywil, you seem very aggitated
Now you can pull me down to some low level
The problem I have with folks like you
So when you finish your little test
Which I find a little odd since Para wasn't attacking you, or even your beliefs.
From what I've read, you seem very reasonable in comparison to some people on the threads.
Your opinion that the whole shows inteligent design even if the smaller parts do not is one I've heard before. Yet you say your a computer programmer.
I deal with computer programs all the time (and yes they are intelligently designed for the most part O.o). You could say to me, you know that Adobe Photoshop, it's made up entirely of 1s and 0s.
I might reply - "Get outta here! I'm familiar with 1s and I'm familiar with 0s. Neither is anything like Photoshop."
We'd then start down a long long path of explaination where you showed me how chips work, how early program language worked, how it's been built upon.
In the end, I should agree with you about the 1's and 0's, but I could just as easily say - "Nah, Photoshop doesn't look like a 1".
Proving the component parts is not some little victory, it's intregal in understanding the whole of the theory. And even when we succeed in proving the component, it still seems to make no difference to believers in the whole.
I'm a computer programmer analyst. Now I could write a program that if large sections of it were damaged or erased, could somehow repair itself. But it would take a lot of forethought, planning, and design.
This sounds a lot like the "Monkey's typing Hamlet" argument. How hard would it be for a monkey banging away on a typewriter to come up with Hamlet? Very. But, set up a program that keeps any correct letters - takes surprisingly little time to succeed.