But, I will take you at your words. You have made an observational case for intelligent design. And, such a case is pure conjecture, untill such time as you propose and conduct a repeatable test to verify your observations.
Open all the newspapers in America every day and go to the obituary section, I predict that you will find that people are dying.
It is not conjecture that biological organisms are born, live a somewhat fixed lifespan, then perish.
It is not conjecture that biological organism seek to sustain their life.
It is not conjecture that biological organisms instinctively attempt to adapt to the environment in order to survive.
It is conjecture that these predictable patterns of behavior are the product of some internal biological programming that is a function of a complete random chance development.
All the billions upon billions upon billions
upon billions upon billions of opportunities for biological organisms to "randomly ignorantly mindlessly evolve into" a condition where the DNA became eternally capable of regeneration....and not one case where it happened.
No scientist in a lab has been able to produce any dramatic extension in the lifespan of human beings.
Just bad luck, eh?
Nope, they are programmed, and they are bound to continue this biological cycle of birth, lifespan, then death forever until the environment is so hostile that life cannot be sustained.
All you have to do to do to show me I am wrong in my observation of biological organisms behavior, and subsequent verification of this theory that this programming is the result of plan, not chance....is show me the biological organism that has evolved to a lifespan much much beyond the norm of its species, or has achieved an condition where if the environment is supportive, biological organism do not perish but sustain their life eternally.
This is by design, plain and simple.
Pick any species, and I can predict what the lifespan will be within a reasonable time frame barring external damage to the organism by the environment.
This ability to predict lifespan is the indication of order, not chaos.
I predict that human beings will not evolve into another species ever, they will forever be human beings, living a lifespan within a relatively narrow and predictable time frame. They may grown into their full human potential, but that full human potential is not a new species.
Natural law is ID, most people just are too afraid of God and what that means in their lives to accept the simple truth of it.
I honestly don't understand why so many people here at ET make is so difficult.
I am not a fundamental Christian pushing a Biblical literal take on biological organisms and the how and why biological organisms exist. I am just observing the order and pattern of programming of life that we all experience, and making a most reasonable conclusion that this is not by accident, or by random chance. Random chance would have produced eternal life by now....it hasn't happened. The odds would favor it if this truly were a random mindless driven universe.
No, the green grass doesn't grow all around, only where the programming of grass and Nature's ways allows it to grow.
Quote from kjkent1:
NO, science is NOT "after all" observation.
Science is the VERIFICATION of observation by repeatable TESTING.
Just saying something is so, because it looks like it is so is NOT science, because there is no verifying of the observation by repeatable testing.
But, I will take you at your words. You have made an observational case for intelligent design. And, such a case is pure conjecture, untill such time as you propose and conduct a repeatable test to verify your observations.
When you do this -- when ANY proponent of intelligent design achieves this goal, then, at that moment, intelligent design will leap across the chasm from theism to scientific investigation.
Until then, ID is just theism. And theism is fine -- but, it's not science.
And, of course your standard response will follow, that science is theism as well, and my response to that will be that science is only theism where there is no verification by repeatable testing, and after that you will state that ID doesn't require testing because it's self evident, and then I will say that is fine, but it's not science because science requires a repeatable test to verify the self evident observation...
...and the green grass grew all around and around and the green grass grew all around.
