Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Please provide evidence for your God/Lord Jesus?

Oh boy, here we go again, CI asking for something he has no knowledge of - evidence!

I have no knowledge of a god because I can't produce evidence for IT>.
Logic 101.

Evidence has never been your friend. You seem to have but a passing acquaintance with it.

Yes, ive never understood why some of them think it is so clever to call the designer Flying Spaghetti Monster, bearded old man in the sky, etc. They say It’s just silly to believe such tripe as an invisible 'designer' of life.
And yet they happily accept the word of physicists that 96% of the universe is invisible and that there is an invisible power accelerating the universe's expansion, and that it may well contain other unseen dimensions along side of this one.

Which is the more incredible claim?

Next time you're brushing your teeth, take a look in the mirror.
The evidence will be staring back at you.

Sorry. I have to go for the low-hanging fruit. Unlike you who get to fly around in your airplane all day enjoying the beautiful weather, I have to spend most of my day helping companies wend their way through the minefield of bugs and poor design implementations in Microsoft's code base and their unwieldy corporate licensing structures (which they like to change on an almost daily basis). As soon as Microsoft gets their act together (cold day in hell) I'll be happy to take the time to dismantle your other rationalizations and unsupported assertions. (part of that was tongue in cheek by the way, you can choose which parts as you like) Have a nice day.

Another person pretending that they exhibit intellectual honesty.

Apology accepted. And sorry for poo-pooing your HOX genes.

I feel your pain. I worked mostly on the hardware side but it was equally frustrating being asked to fix original design problems but make sure the fix is retrofitable to the installed base (military ****) i.e., fix the problem but dont change anything. And of course defending the hardware from the accusing finger pointing of you software guys.

It really is amazing how much we now know about HOX genes but also how far there is to go. As Bill Gates said, 'The genome is code just like Microsoft's OS, just way more complex.' Or words to that effect. That’s true of even the most ancient single cell life form. Or bacteria for that matter.

Farmerman is always saying the complexity argument has been debunked but can you with a straight face say you believe that even the simpler Microsoft OS could result from a finite number of random combinations of ascii characters?

I think that was one factor that prompted the 'multiverse theory', which there is also no evidence for. But They saw the need to expand finite closer to infinity in order to give naturally occurring life a fighting chance.

The minute Microsoft OS's start reproducing then I will consider them viable analogies for evolution, but until that happens examples like that (and other technologies) are simply invalid analogies and red herrings. The direction evolution goes is random, but the process itself is anything but random, that's whey the call it natural SELECTION and not natural RANDOM.

I'm not usually a software guy. My specialty is infrastructure design and business strategy (with regard to technology), mostly virtualizations and Ground to Cloud Migrations (AWS and Azure), but I constantly get pulled into the weeds and have to fight through impenetrable walls of Microsoft red-tape and licensing snafoo's.

Understood about evolution but my argument was for abiogenesis.

There are complexity arguments in evolution as well, but you have to start somewhere and it is assumed by all that first life's infrastructure was DNA/RNA based. That bespeaks a certain minimum level of complexity that can’t be further simplified (irreducible complexity) That level is still more complicated than Microsoft OS or even their licensing strategy.

Not only reproduce, but evolve into other things based on the environment.

I'm on the phone with a Microsoft Tech, so while he fumbles to figure out their own licensing systems... So, are you basically trying to figure out what happened between molecular evolution and biological evolution? Are you asking how its possible to transition between amino acids (which we know form naturally) and the first replicative molecule?

Your quote:
And yet they happily accept the word of physicists...
Yup I do get that impression from such atheists, they're very physical and materialistic, as if they're God themselves or they're trying to run from their spiritual selves. I'm not saying all atheists are like that though, I've come across atheists that are very open-minded and spiritual-friendly.
But I do notice that some atheists only respond to spiritual matters when things in their lives start going wrong for them, as if they've just realised that we are not perfect beings we make mistakes, and life is not always predictable, controllable and perfect. Those are some of the reasons why I became a Christian or a theist so to speak.

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Sh*t like that cracks me up.

Yes, in simplest terms, that is the question, as long as you mean 'able to pass on characteristics, reproduce and have the mechanisms associated with DNA.

I’m not sure what you meant by 'molecular evolution'. I’ve had past discussions where processes are called that or 'replicative' when all that was being described was a process like rust or crystal formation. That has no relevance as far as I can see.

Becus you dont understand that the rules of chemitry are relatively few, doesnt mean they dont run the reactions.

COOH can be esterified in hot muddy brine and form complx esters for cell wall construction under its own steam (really). BTW, fatty acids can be formed in life free environments,just like Tropsch can form CH4,(It funny how many of you guys( like gungasnake) try to argue both ides of an issue that says pre biotic chemicals (CH4) cant happen without life, and then state (like their brains are turned off), that CH$ can form in a non fossil fuel arena through the Tropsch process)
Things this planet had in massive amounts is heat, reducing environments, magnetism , water, and pH/Eh negativity.

Id suggest you get books on introductory biochemistry and introductory Phyical chem and read about all these things you try to deny.

The books on biochemistry are going to lead you to books on QM. Books on QM are going to lead you to string theory, the big bang, inflation theory and entropic gravity.

There certianly is a lot of information to understand.

Utter bullshit--perhaps you can give us a short bibliography of those works on biochemistry which you have read and which lead down that alleged path.

Theres been a small cadre of guys whove published one or two papers about "testing" Pauli exclusion principles in Hydrogen Carbon bonds. Its hypotheses stuff, .I think BJ just gets all sweaty when he does a google search and makes these idi claims that theres a whole ten foot bookshelf on what, through today, has biochem and QM as closely related as chinese cooking and the art of bicycle maintenance,

Even so, testing "indistinguishability" is but a small part of organic reactions

BJ is just a " hobby -level'concept dropper" who thinks by dropping in a word or phrase from particle physics, he maintains credibility.
Hell, even many physicists who deal with string theory in their careers have no fuckin idea what theyre even talking about.