Okcitykid your within a religious neutrality so its rather odd why you remain confused. The only explination I have is perhaps your slightly naive about evolution. Just to fill you in, DNA originated through the laws of phyics, chemistry and biology, not just merely 'chance'. Physics provide(d) the nuclear force to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos. To juxtapose the "Bridge" metaphor to the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy: the probability of life "evolving" rather than having been "created" may appear unlikely, but the evidence that this is the case is so widespread and well understood. The probability can't be proved wrong under logical and evidential reasoning. Another gap in the ID arguement.
Cturtle, one reason why perhaps I seldomly respond to your questions/discussion is because to me it seems you provide vague, misunderstood, irrelevent material which consequently will rely on a confused reply. And as you said so yourself, you often make a tangent and go off topic. Which leaves little to expect from this thread, hence which is why a reply is absent. Many of your assumptions about evolution are incorrect. If you wish to encounter a biology lesson perhaps write in another thread, read a book, rather than in an ID thread.
Patrish: Macro and micro are well understood. Your a bit behind time now, because it is now known that random genetic drift plays a major role. Evolutionary changes fall into two categories micro and macro. Oh and as eliasan mentioned, dirt is abiotic. Dirt constitutes of primarily compounds and elements from eroded rock, not primarily biological material.
we are no longer as capable as our ancestors to with stand cold dungeon type castles
trying to figure if this is a joke
You make reference to the appendix being useless. Yes this is because human diet has changed over time due to adapting to ever changing environments. Your example represents the term 'Intelligent design' as rather poor design. If you haven't already, read the bottom of the 1st page of this thread.
logic is that an Intelligent Designer put it together
Wow what a strong claim. Interesting, so where is the logical and evidential reasoning of ID
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- --
In order to criticize a theory it must first be explicitly defined, and "intelligent designer" theory is not.
The main justification of ID is the notion of irreducible complexity. This is the idea that some structures are too complex to have evolved naturally, so they must have been deliberately designed. Its proponents gloss over the fact that no one arrives at this conclusion unless they just happen to have been raised in a Judeo-Christian religious environment. They also gloss over the fact that it is flawed on philosophical grounds: it assumes that if we cannot easily find a reason for a phenomenon, then there must be no rational explanation at all, thus requiring divine intervention. And finally, they are deliberately prudent about the identity of this "intelligent designer", because they want to convey this "theory" into the school system in defiance of constitutional church/state separation guarantees, even though everyone knows that the "intelligent designer" is just a "nudge nudge, wink wink" name for God.
Its vastly obvious that intelligent design serves as a feeble proxy for the religious believers in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.
Intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. You can't prove ID by experiment. As far as anyone is concerned the case is clear, intelligent design doesn't and cannot provide logical and evidential reasoning beyond its farcical claims. ID reflects its failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse. To ignore this is to reject the very foundation of ID and its intentions as a theological belief system.