Intelligent design should not be respected as much as the theory of evolution

---->I was talking about biochemical codes and algorithm, that is, that matches a computer. Computers are designed and someone would look stupid if they asked, hmm, did this computer pop into existence? No, the computer had a designer, e.g. Dell, Alienware, etc. The codes in one single cell are so complex, that it resembles a designed machine. This would make sense if this were a large computer composed of parts that are mostly nonfunctioning. The problem is that RNA and protein are just about the smallest things in existence, molecules. Transistors and magnetic switches may not form naturally, but RNA and proteins do. They are formed from simple molecules like cyanide and ammonia under conditions that occur in nature, such as freezing. If you had read all four pages presented in the link I gave you, you would have read that follow-up research has shown similar, if not even more conclusive results. For the sake of your convenience, I will repost the link here: http://discovermagazine.com... >He says that morality is group oriented. I contend this to be false. MOST aspects of morality are group oriented, but certain standards of morality still exist. I.e. killing, raping, cheating and stealing are immoral. Actually, for most of human history, these were not considered immoral. Amongst the Greeks, their GODS regularly raped, murdered, and transformed people into animals. I think the development of universalized morality can be more easily attributed to the fact that it is impossible to form large groups in which the conflict brought about by such acts was a regular occurrence. Imagine a British empire whose soldiers regularly stole from its own citizens. They tried it once when they forced citizens of one of their colonies to house them, and those colonists broke away. The country they formed is now called the United States of America. Group survival requires group morality. One can credibly contend that survival, or at least dominance, requires group survival. After all, the most successful species in the world are group-oriented. Wolves, lions, ants, humans, etc. >Hurting the self goes against the Evolution tenet of self-preservation. YOU are not the one that is preserved between generations. Your DNA is preserved in the form of relatives and descendants. DNA conformations that encourage organisms to watch after their kin will propagate; those that do not, will not. >He then says that everything has a concept of truth. Not everything has a rational concept of truth. Not even every person has a rational concept of truth. Yes, if you tell a dog that there's a bone behind your hand, it won't be able to judge whether or not you're lying, but that's because dog's can't talk. If, on the other hand, you ring a bell every time you feed him, he'll get excited. That's because he found a correlation between hearing the bell and getting fed. This is a basic form of reason shared by practically every living thing, and its accuracy and sophistication improves with brain size. >He then says that I am talking about Deism. That is correct, Deism is a form of ID, and thats the form that I am debating. If you wish to pretend that you weren't being imprecise and even deceptive, that is your choice. --> My opponent never responds to my assumption attack. What does this even mean? --> also, I wasn't just talking about your slime mold example. I was talking about your transcription and replication sentence. That's what conceded that complexity idea. Like I said before, transcription and replication can be set in motion by unintelligent phenomena like freezing. Read the article. > He then brings up the air and food hole example. I have 2 responses: >1. Where would you like it to go, in your anus? I personally would not like that (Sorry for crude example) A truly intelligent designer would have created a third hole in one's throat, or abandoned the digestive tract entirely and had us absorb nutrients through our skin, or any number of solutions that a supernaturally gifted intelligent designer could implement with ease. >2. Do you know the mind of god/gods/supernatural being? If it can create life, it is much more intelligent than us. If it created bodies with such glaring flaws, then it probably isn't very intelligent. This is a rather glaring contradiction. If God exists, then God is an idiot savant. > Me and my opponent agree that the universe is mathematical. You can now affirm right here. Math is a complex way of formulation. Math could not exist in its present form from nothing. Thus, a designer/mathematician is necessary I wrote this in response to your contention that the universe was designed because it is mathematical: What kind of universe would have to not have been designed? In my mind, a logically consistent universe would require MUCH less celestial fiat than an arbitrary one. If both logical and arbitrary universes are proof of a creator, then your stance is unfalsifiable. Did you even read what I wrote? > My opponent believes that empirical evidence is the only way to prove or disprove. This is false. E.g. I can disprove the fact that under my desk is a huge purple elephant, without looking. Why? Well, elephants don't live indigenously in NY. My desk to small for an elephant, thus without using my senses such as sight. I can deduce the fact there is no purple elephant under my desk. I didn't say that empirical evidence is the only way to prove or disprove. I'm saying that the idea that God created the universe is an assumption about empirical and physical reality and therefore must be subject to empirical evaluation. As for your (irrelevant) purple elephant example, it is rife with assumptions that have been established empirically. For example, elephants don't live indigenously in NY. If no one had ever gone to NY, not even the Indians, and no one had ever seen or studied elephants in the wild, then this would not have been established. Plus, you know from experience that nothing solid or liquid can fit in a container smaller than itself, and yet it is easy to imagine something doing just that. >Furthermore, the realm of proving or disproving god msut be a rationalistic argument, and/or an a priori argument. You say nothing to back this up. Absolutely nothing. Well, you DO say "Thank you ladies and gentlemen." I should give you all respect due for at least appending, if not supporting, your bald assertion.