Defence of Intelligent Design

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You seriously believe that there's no new species? There's as many transitional fossils as there are fossils, because every organism is "transitional." You're the transitional organism between your parents and your children.

Well, I know it's not me you're talking to, but if you cared to come to Prior Lake, MN, I'll tell you right to your face that there's no scientific basis to intelligent design, that it can't construct hypotheses or make predictions, and that anybody who believes it does so to satisfy a deeply-held religious ideology that they couldn't abide being wrong.If you want to fight after that, we can do that, too. I'm trained in the use of several weapons so I'm happy to let you choose.On the other hand, you could just look around this board, get involved in some of the threads, and actually find out why rational people come to the conclusion that there's no science in ID.

How could anybody be created in the image of something that doesn't exist?

I disagree. I think that my comment points out that you can hardly claim that it's self-evident that we're created in the image of god by god unless it's also self-evident that god exists in the first place, which it is not.I think a lot of times these debates stagnate because people are all too willing to accept that a belief in god is reasonable. I'm not. If you're going to talk about God, I need to hear why you believe he exists, first. It has to start with that.Oh, well. Nobody has to respond if they don't want to. But if you're going to talk about god with me, we have to start with whether or not he exists. I'm not willing to just assume he does.

If I can show that there's no designer capable of the design that doesn't bring contradictions or infinite regression into the theory, then I've disproved the design conjecture.