So in light of the all the evolution bashing threads, I decided to get to the heart of the matter. You see, you can try to disprove evolution by bringing up genetics, the fossil record, irreducible complexity, etc.. but science has already answered all of that so we are just rehashing other people's answers. Now, since everyone who is trying in vain to disprove evolution is a Creationist (if you are not, please state how you think the diversity of life came about), I figured that we can cut right to the heart of the matter and show that it is no reason for Creationists to toil and sweat to disprove evolution since their own theory is fatally flawed. So what is that flaw? Well, since creationism/intelligent design states that all life in the universe was created by an intelligent creator, then there has to be proof of this creator. Most of the time, Creationists think that seeing signs of a creator proves that there is one, however this is flawed logic. We humans have a wonderful brain that does a lot of amazing things.including being able to pick out patterns out of apparent randomness. This is how we learn to read and are able to do math. We are so good at this that some thing as simple as two dots over an arc can remind us of a human face. The downfall is that we also see patterns when there are none to be seen. Take a look at these pictures: Both of these are a result of natural forces, but they look as if they were designed. Another thing is that even if we have evidence of intelligent design, it doesn't mean God did it. Maybe it is an ancient race of advance aliens or maybe we are in a computer simulation like the Matrix. Even is we can conclude it is a god, it doesn't have to be the Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible. It could be Zeus, Vishnu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So unless you can prove your intelligent designer exists, science will never accept Creationism/Intelligent Design as anything but mythology.
No, it means that just because something looks designed, it doesn't mean it is. You have to back it up with evidence. Our beliefs should fit the facts, not the other way around.
You truly are the unique individual we all thought you pretended to be...aren't you? See we gotses dees thingamabobs bein' call'ed books dat splains historical type thangys an kin make us gettin' all brayat an' stuff. Day splain what da mountain was for it got all chopped up an' got all perty neat. Lets us no it was made stead o' natral.
We have massive evidence of the creation of the Mt. Rushmore memorial - the choice of the site, the blatant theft of the land from the Lakota Sioux, the funding by congress (which was cut short, resulting in busts only), the actual construction in photographs and records, the guys who did the design and work, etc. For Creationism, there is pure belief without evidence of any kind. I think the point about finding stuff that looks like design is that it takes more than "looks like". DNA looks complex, but that isn't evidence of there being a god. etc. ID tries to find events that seem unlikely as their way of "proving" that there must be a god. But, things we don't understand often look complex. Look at the math of Ptolemy as he tries to describe the movements of the planets - movements that look so incredibly complex due to his understanding of the earth being at the center.
