[Coyoteman]

If the world, the universe, and all life were created by God, as many (including myself) believe, then no scientific debate would be complete without discussing how Intelligent Design has worked to form all that we can know.

You don't believe that it's possible, but all the evidence shows that life cannot have been some grand coincidence, which means it must have been purposely created.

You are arguing a religious point, not a scientific point.

If you want to argue within the realm of science, you need to bring scientific evidence.

[jim35]

["If you want to argue within the realm of science, you need to bring scientific evidence."]

No scientific evidence would be sufficient, coyoteman, as we both know. Your mind is made up, and the facts aren't about to get in your way.

Over and over, you've been presented with the facts that show it is clearly impossible for life to have been spontaneously formed by coincidence, which only leaves room for creation.

You choose to reject that, on grounds that you simply refuse to accept this as scientific enough for you.

You also refuse to accept as scientific enough, the idea that where there is a clock, there must have been a clockmaker.

I don't know what could be less scientific of you.

[Southack]

"If you want to argue within the realm of science, you need to bring scientific evidence."

Fair enough. Here's scientific evidence:

Now, which theory best explains how the above pig came to have the gene for producing Human Growth Hormone:
#1. Evolution or
#2. Intelligent Design

[rudy45]

Hypothetical question: next week, if I'm standing somewhere on earth, and I drop a pencil, which direction will it go? up or down? What if I do it two weeks from now, or a year from now? Thanks.