Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Well this is a trip!!! Kind of puts any arguments about DNA not being almost identical to our computers to rest, that is, except for Hollyman, who will ignore the copy in this wiki quote and post something about ICR.

"DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing.

Capabilities:

DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]"

DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UltimateReality]

There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.

"Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.

See my two questions posed to Ad Hollyman and give me an honest answer. Your response above gets about as close as anything anyone here has come up with to actually answering my first question.

It's easy to tell when the teenage fundies are frustrated; they resort to name-calling.

And "fundie creationists" isn't name calling??

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

 

[UltimateReality]

With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.

The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.

With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.

This sounds like more garbage from ICR. Why are you so obsessed with them?

They supply the fodder for your arguments. I'm deeply concerned that you can't separate your teenage fantasies from the putrid bile they teach you.

ICR is the basis for your arguments. That is why you are always quoting them.

 

[Hollie]

Well this is a trip!!! Kind of puts any arguments about DNA not being almost identical to our computers to rest, that is, except for Hollyman, who will ignore the copy in this wiki quote and post something about ICR.

"DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing.

Capabilities:

DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]"

DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should read what you posted. The Intelligent Designers being discussed are researchers at CalTech. Theres nothing supernatural about DNA research.

There was no mention of gods in the article.

I'm afraid your juvenile name-calling and appeals to the gods of science at Caltech have left you and your pals at the ICR with more credibility issues.

 

[Hollie]

This sounds like more garbage from ICR. Why are you so obsessed with them?

They supply the fodder for your arguments. I'm deeply concerned that you can't separate your teenage fantasies from the putrid bile they teach you.

ICR is the basis for your arguments. That is why you are always quoting them.

That makes no sense. I have not quoted from the ICR. WIth name-calling not working you're now moving on to lies? I am a-religious toward all claims to gods and supernaturalism. I find so much of it damaging to humanity. One look at your posts in this thread is evidence of that. Read your own posts. They're a mess of irrational, inconsistent cuting and pasting from fundie religious sites with no attempt at credibility or personal accountability. When anyone wreaks havoc with your claims, you retreat into sweaty, feverish, chest heaving name-calling. Its an embarassment to everyone but you.

 

[newpolitics]

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.

With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.

The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.

With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.

I did not say this and do not want credit for this. Ultimate Reality is the one who wrote this.

 

[newpolitics]

There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.

There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.

"Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.

See my two questions posed to Ad Hollyman and give me an honest answer. Your response above gets about as close as anything anyone here has come up with to actually answering my first question.

Here is the original quote, in context. This was probably a simple mistake, but I still would like to correct it, because I don't want anyone thinking I agree with ID, even for a second.

 

[Hollie]

I need to fess'up for my error. My mistake. My apologies for the mistake.

 

[newpolitics]

And neither are you!!!! If you were, you could answer the two questions I've posed numerous times on this thread regarding origins and evolution. None of your evo fools can seem to answer them so nice try at sound scientific.

Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.

Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?

What two questions? Would you mind repeating them? I tried to search back but can't find them.

 

[newpolitics]

I need to fess'up for my error. My mistake. My apologies for the mistake.

That's totally okay! I just don't want to be mistaken for someone who follows ID. No worries

 

[UltimateReality]

They supply the fodder for your arguments. I'm deeply concerned that you can't separate your teenage fantasies from the putrid bile they teach you.

ICR is the basis for your arguments. That is why you are always quoting them.

That makes no sense. I have not quoted from the ICR. WIth name-calling not working you're now moving on to lies? I am a-religious toward all claims to gods and supernaturalism. I find so much of it damaging to humanity. One look at your posts in this thread is evidence of that. Read your own posts. They're a mess of irrational, inconsistent cuting and pasting from fundie religious sites with no attempt at credibility or personal accountability. When anyone wreaks havoc with your claims, you retreat into sweaty, feverish, chest heaving name-calling. Its an embarassment to everyone but you.

You should really cool it with the name calling and grow up.

 

[Hollie]

ICR is the basis for your arguments. That is why you are always quoting them.

That makes no sense. I have not quoted from the ICR. WIth name-calling not working you're now moving on to lies? I am a-religious toward all claims to gods and supernaturalism. I find so much of it damaging to humanity. One look at your posts in this thread is evidence of that. Read your own posts. They're a mess of irrational, inconsistent cuting and pasting from fundie religious sites with no attempt at credibility or personal accountability. When anyone wreaks havoc with your claims, you retreat into sweaty, feverish, chest heaving name-calling. Its an embarassment to everyone but you.

You should really cool it with the name calling and grow up.

You've been spamming with similar false claims in prior posts.

It's telling that you defend your behavior by compounding your juvenile behavior.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.

(by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment) Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is testable: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is falsifiable: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!

The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this could have happened" or "this might have been how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!

How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'. Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans? If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.

Now you are asking what is the definition of an intelligent agent? Is my dog an intelligent agent? Flip to a non-scientific religious argument for second, God says he created us in His image. Should we be surprised that we invented computers???

No, that is not what I am asking.

I am saying a couple of things. First, based on the idea that since we only see digital code created by intelligence, and DNA is a digital code, it must be made by an intelligence, since we only see digital code created by humans, if DNA is a digital code, it must be made by humans. Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if all intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.

As to your religious argument, since I don't believe in your god, all of that is irrelevant.

 

[UltimateReality]

How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'. Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans? If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.

Now you are asking what is the definition of an intelligent agent? Is my dog an intelligent agent? Flip to a non-scientific religious argument for second, God says he created us in His image. Should we be surprised that we invented computers???

No, that is not what I am asking.

I am saying a couple of things. First, based on the idea that since we only see digital code created by intelligence, and DNA is a digital code, it must be made by an intelligence, since we only see digital code created by humans, if DNA is a digital code, it must be made by humans. Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if all intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.

As to your religious argument, since I don't believe in your god, all of that is irrelevant.

I think that is what you should be asking because the argument you propose above really boils down to the question, "what is intelligence?" The crux of your argument is that we can't introduce another intelligent being into the argument, only us because we are currently the only ones creating code. That leaves the TOE severely lacking in the area as well because they have zero answers to the origins questions. So in absence of any other evidence, right now intelligence is really the only logical conclusion for the digital code in dna. This is based on the evidence which we can observe, not abstract ideas that are un-proven and speculation at best. We can readily observe that intelligence, our intelligence, is responsible for the digital code used in computers, but also we possess a functional language as well that can be used to convey abstract ideas and thinking.

To your other point, the fact we could propose a logical argument to conclude that humans created dna is valid. However, we have other evidence that leads us to believe dna pre-dates humans by a few billion years, so your argument can almost instantly be falsified, and we must exclude ourselves from the possibility, leaving another IA as being responsible.

I guess I really need for you to expound on the reason you feel another agent is excluded, as long as we can agree on some common traits of what an intellligent agent possesses.

From wiki-use with caution:

The definition of intelligence is controversial. Groups of scientists have stated the following:

from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:

A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]

from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]

 

[newpolitics]

Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.

(by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment) Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is testable: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is falsifiable: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!

The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this could have happened" or "this might have been how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!

How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'. Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans? If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.

Now you are asking what is the definition of an intelligent agent? Is my dog an intelligent agent? Flip to a non-scientific religious argument for second, God says he created us in His image. Should we be surprised that we invented computers???

What??? Who cares what god "said" in an ancient book written by unreliable sources 2,000 years ago for which we have zero original copies. Then, to use what he "said" as an explanation of our ability to manufacture computers is quite hilarious.

I watched your little video on genetics. It was quite boring and was nothing new to me, although factual. Try this, a video on cosmology.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM&feature=related]What We Still Don't Know: "Are We Real?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if ALL intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.

You are correct in this assertion.

I really feel out of many of the posters, you really genuinely are here seeking an opposing viewpoint to broaden your knowledge base, so I don't think the statement above is you trying to throw a trick into the argument. But I do have to point out the way your argument is constructed, the word "all" does not follow from the argument and if placed in the context of this logical argument, would be fallacious. We really aren't making that claim. Let's see what we actually can deduce:

(some) Humans produce digital code. (this has to be true)
(all) Humans are intelligent beings. (this has to be true) And I might change this to "some" after some of the posts on here.
All intelligent beings produce digital code. (This is a fallacy but this isn't...

Some intelligent beings produce digital code. So while we couldn't claim that all intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics, we can logically conclude that some intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics as others IB's.

Here is a pretty good explanation, from Wiki no less, on syllogisms. Ad Hollyman should read this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.

Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?

What two questions? Would you mind repeating them? I tried to search back but can't find them.

I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...

1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.

2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?

So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?

 

[Montrovant]

Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if ALL intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.

You are correct in this assertion.

I really feel out of many of the posters, you really genuinely are here seeking an opposing viewpoint to broaden your knowledge base, so I don't think the statement above is you trying to throw a trick into the argument. But I do have to point out the way your argument is constructed, the word "all" does not follow from the argument and if placed in the context of this logical argument, would be fallacious. We really aren't making that claim. Let's see what we actually can deduce:

(some) Humans produce digital code. (this has to be true)
(all) Humans are intelligent beings. (this has to be true) And I might change this to "some" after some of the posts on here.
All intelligent beings produce digital code. (This is a fallacy but this isn't...

Some intelligent beings produce digital code. So while we couldn't claim that all intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics, we can logically conclude that some intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics as others IB's.

Here is a pretty good explanation, from Wiki no less, on syllogisms. Ad Hollyman should read this...

Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are a number of issues I have with the digital code in DNA argument, most importantly that I'm not entirely sure just what definition you are using for digital code, and also that there is a huge difference between a man-made machine and a biologic organism, even if you describe the functioning of that organism as machine-like.

To stick with this particular point, while we can certainly conclude that some intelligences will create digital code as we see it from humanity, that doesn't actually indicate we will see it from any other intelligence. More, because we have no direct evidence of other intelligences even existing (for the purposes of this argument I am excluding other terrestrial animal life, as what we know of them is that they do not reach our level of intelligence and do not create any sort of digital code) there is simply not enough evidence to draw any conclusions about intelligent design of life.

Now, show me a purely mechanical device of non-human origin and everything is different. As I said, though, because life functions differently than machines (even if you discount evolution, you must admit that living reproduction makes for much more variety than you would see from, say, an automated assembly line) I think it becomes much more difficult to make a convincing design argument.

To put it in simple terms, because I have neither the education nor knowledge to be especially detailed about the subject, there are many things in the universe we can see that defy explanation. How life came to be, how the universe came to be, questions of space and time (is the universe finite? If so, what is beyond it? Is it possible the universe is finite and yet there is nothing beyond it?), all these kinds of questions can leave me feeling extremely ignorant and insignificant. For many of these questions I can hardly begin to wonder at the answers, let alone how they could exist without something having created them. But my (and humanity's) inability to see a way for something to occur naturally does not mean it could not; it just means we don't know how it happened.

I guess it comes down to me needing more positive proof something was designed, rather than evidence against any hypotheses of random occurrence. Showing some similarities to human-created mechanical things is not that kind of positive evidence IMO. The complete lack of evidence of other intelligences, the lack of reference, makes it even less compelling. I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility of design, but at this point, even with this digital code argument, it is just as possible this arose through a random process we don't yet understand.

Whether gods or aliens, until we have objective evidence that another intelligence is out there and can see it's creations, I doubt I will be able to accept any of the arguments for ID. The evidence remains too much what we don't know rather than what we do.

 

[Hollie]

Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if ALL intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.

You are correct in this assertion.

I really feel out of many of the posters, you really genuinely are here seeking an opposing viewpoint to broaden your knowledge base, so I don't think the statement above is you trying to throw a trick into the argument. But I do have to point out the way your argument is constructed, the word "all" does not follow from the argument and if placed in the context of this logical argument, would be fallacious. We really aren't making that claim. Let's see what we actually can deduce:

(some) Humans produce digital code. (this has to be true)
(all) Humans are intelligent beings. (this has to be true) And I might change this to "some" after some of the posts on here.
All intelligent beings produce digital code. (This is a fallacy but this isn't...

Some intelligent beings produce digital code. So while we couldn't claim that all intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics, we can logically conclude that some intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics as others IB's.

Here is a pretty good explanation, from Wiki no less, on syllogisms. Ad Hollyman should read this...

Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The primary issue with your continuing arguments (in addition to your juvenile name-calling), is that you are unable to separate your requirement to introduce the gods and supernaturalism from a completely rational environment.

These are natural, rational elements that don't require supernatural causation or mechanisms. You lead you argument above with the presumption of gods when no gods are needed. Those are the same tactics used by Harun Yahya and fundie creationist groups.

Let's use some terms and definitions that are more appropriate for the name-calling mentality. Introduce the term "The Easter Bunny" in place of "designer / gods" in your paragraphs above.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if ALL intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.

You are correct in this assertion.

I really feel out of many of the posters, you really genuinely are here seeking an opposing viewpoint to broaden your knowledge base, so I don't think the statement above is you trying to throw a trick into the argument. But I do have to point out the way your argument is constructed, the word "all" does not follow from the argument and if placed in the context of this logical argument, would be fallacious. We really aren't making that claim. Let's see what we actually can deduce:

(some) Humans produce digital code. (this has to be true)
(all) Humans are intelligent beings. (this has to be true) And I might change this to "some" after some of the posts on here.
All intelligent beings produce digital code. (This is a fallacy but this isn't...

Some intelligent beings produce digital code. So while we couldn't claim that all intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics, we can logically conclude that some intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics as others IB's.

Here is a pretty good explanation, from Wiki no less, on syllogisms. Ad Hollyman should read this...

Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The primary issue with your continuing arguments (in addition to your juvenile name-calling), is that you are unable to separate your requirement to introduce the gods and supernaturalism from a completely rational environment.

These are natural, rational elements that don't require supernatural causation or mechanisms. You lead you argument above with the presumption of gods when no gods are needed. Those are the same tactics used by Harun Yahya and fundie creationist groups.

Let's use some terms and definitions that are more appropriate for the name-calling mentality. Introduce the term "The Easter Bunny" in place of "designer / gods" in your paragraphs above.

The ability to reason from evidence is a problem for you and some of your fellow evolutionists. The wind you can's see but you know it exists and you can see it's effects. God is a spirit and he is like the wind.

The difference is one side can admit to intelligence in nature where the other side reluctantly admits to it,why ?