There is intelligent design.

[Carrikature]

Well that would be true if that god is a non existent entity.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You can't say that non-existence has no meaning when applied to God while claiming god is a non-existent entity.

[Jedidiah]

I believe you had posted this.

In no way related to human engineering or design. You chose to see it that way even though I did say "some" and "or a substitute."

[Tassman]

This is ok from a sound theist perspective, but the arguments using anthropomorphic human concepts of intelligent design and engineering, like Plantinga's are bogus, and unscientific.

See Dover Trial.

[shunyadragon]

...whereby Judge John E. Jones III issued the decision in the case and in his conclusion he wrote:

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents

Correct! There is no justification for ID in science as Plantinga asserts.

[Zxcv Bnm]

I believe God Created all of existence, but I acknowledge that this is a belief. The concept of Intelligent Design is awkward and anthropomorphic. God is a Creator, not an engineer, nor a designer.

There is no objective evidence nor falsifiable hypothesis nor theory that could objectively demonstrate 'Intelligent Design.'

The existence of a Source some call God(s) can neither be proved nor disproved, therefore the claim that there is an 'Intelligent Designer,' can neither be proved nor disproved. These matters remain a subject of one's belief and faith.

Law of biogenesis : life only comes from life.

[whag]

Law of biogenesis : life only comes from life.

Then when it arrives, what does it do? Remain in stasis?

[Doug Shaver]

Law of biogenesis : life only comes from life.

It's not a law just religious apologists say it is.

[Edit] It's not a law just because religious apologists say it is.

[firstfloor]

I believe God Created all of existence, but I acknowledge that this is a belief.

[Epoetker]

I appreciate your willingness to fall back on bare assertion as a support to your arguments, but I think the Muslims do that better than you, at least since al-Ghazali.

[shunyadragon]

Law of biogenesis : life only comes from life.

????? There is no law of biogenesis in science. Are you making this up?!?!?!?

[shunyadragon]

It's not a law just religious apologists say it is.

[Edit] It's not a law just because religious apologists say it is.

This is a first for me. I have never heard about this so called 'Law.'

[shunyadragon]

This will take more thought. I prefer to view God more simply as the 'Source' some call God(s).

[Doug Shaver]

This is a first for me. I have never heard about this so called 'Law.'

I have, but not very often, and only from apologists attempting to discredit evolution. Perhaps most anti-evolutionists have gotten the word that they'll end up looking silly if they try to use it.

[IDScience]

????? There is no law of biogenesis in science. Are you making this up?!?!?!?

Of course there is a law of biogenesis, just because its never referenced by evolutionary scientists does not mean it does not exist. Because in our universe life is only observed to come from life, and never do we observe evidence to the contrary, this proves its a law until proven otherwise. Of course this does not mean it will never be broken, I personally believe in the abiogenesis of God, but not in our space time continuum

The problem is, the foundation of evolutionary science has established its self on the belief this law has been violated (at least once) in the universe, and without this law of biogenesis being violated there can not be an origins of life hypothesis without intelligent design. Because we have a true dichotomy here, either life in the universe came into existence by biogenesis (another sentient life) or it came into existence by abiogenesis (non-sentient matter), no third hypothesis can possibly exist. So if evolutionary science categorically rejects one side of a dichotomy, they have no choice but to accept the only other alternative, even if there is an immutable law that states otherwise

Atheistic evolutionary science has painted its self into a theoretical corner that they can't possibly get out of without getting their "feet" all sticky and wet

[Doug Shaver]

Of course there is a law of biogenesis,

Not just because evangelical apologists say so, there isn't.

just because its never referenced by evolutionary scientists does not mean it does not exist.

It's not a scientific law if scientists don't use it.

Because in our universe life is only observed to come from life

Oh, you've checked the entire universe, have you?

never do we observe evidence to the contrary, this proves its a law until proven otherwise.

Nope, that's not how science works.

The problem is, the foundation of evolutionary science has established its self on the belief this law has been violated (at least once)

No, that is not the foundation of evolutionary theory.

without this law of biogenesis being violated there can not be an origins of life hypothesis without intelligent design.

So says your dogma. Not so says science.