The primary flaw in intelligent design

[Mr. Clandestine]

You have to show how it is illogical.

I can point to arguments made before me, hardly any of which are original, but I figured you were probably tired of hearing them...and it's not my intention to turn this into the same drab argument that's already been reproduced countless times. It's also only going to point out why I think it's illogical, but most likely wouldn't hold the same meaning for you. Again, I'm not fond of pushing my beliefs on others because it tends to just start arguments, but if I had to point out one illogical evolutionist flaw, it would have to be that this beautiful world was generated randomly, and by sheer chance. I understand where you attempt to find logic in this scenario, and even try to apply scientific studies & conclusions to back up your hypothesis, but I stand firm that only an intelligent creator would be capable of creating so much beauty...and that this never could have happened by blind chance. And conversely, I attribute all the ugliness in this world to the actions and deeds of humans.

Care to show a skeptic your historical documents?

Not sure what you're asking here. I could show plenty of skeptics of these historical documents, hell...the Catholic Church is sometimes one of the biggest critics. Ever heard of the Gospel According to Saint Thomas? It was a set of scrolls said to have been written by one of Jesus' closest disciples, unearthed in Egypt in 1945, and claims to actually be the words and instructions of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church considers these documents to be the work of a heretical author (even though they recognize Didymus Judas Thomas as one of the most respected apostles), but of course, would never revise their canonical texts to allow this scripture into the Holy Bible. But I've read this gospel, several times, and find much meaning behind the words, analogies, and parables that Jesus used...so I'm blatantly refusing to listen to the Catholic Church, and taking my own stance on this subject. Not that I'm a Catholic anyway, but you get my point. Most Christians aren't fond of having any disputes with the Catholic Church, especially ones that the Church considers to be heresy.

Which pile of bones is estimated to be either thousands or millions of years old?

I wasn't pointing to any pile of bones in particular, but to all of them in general. Scientists claim that many dinosaur bones are millions of years old, and many came to this conclusion based on the findings of carbon dating methods. But, as I'm sure you've heard plenty of times before, Carbon-14 degrades over time, and probably wouldn't sustain these amounts of carbon isotopes over millions of years. Thousands maybe, but not millions/billions.

There aren't two versions of logic.

But there can exist two people who, due to several varying factors, find different meaning in the "sound logic" seen by the other. You could, for all intensive purposes, contend that aliens don't exist because of the sheer improbability of there being another planet capable of sustaining carbon-based lifeforms...while I could point out that for all we know, life can exist in different plains of existence, or based on other undocumented circumstances. I.e. - electro-magnetic energy derived lifeforms, hydrogen based lifeforms, spaghetti based lifeforms, etc.

You state that this is not proof, this is a supposition. You are supposing that anything that resembles a language is made by intelligent beings. But the language of math disproves that.

But I also stated that it could be considered a logical argument. Mathematics consists of procedures, calculations, and properties...all of which were discovered and founded based upon the interpretation of intelligent beings. So, the "language of math" could also be speculated to be the creation of man, because it merely relates to finding coherent algorithms behind specific sets of circumstances and explicit quantities.

If these theories are logical or have proof, spit 'em out

If it's unlikely that you're going to find logic behind my reasoning, I see little reason to express it. I also don't see immediate reason to defend why I believe that God exists, because it's just my belief...and I've stated this many times. I'm not expecting people to adhere to my beliefs just because I believe in them. If someone is truly interested in hearing why I believe what I do, or wants to learn more about my beliefs, then I'll be happy to share. If they're merely trying to get me to spill my guts, just so that they can further try to discredit me, then I'll leave well enough alone and conclude that it's just a personal belief...personal to me, though not to you.

I don't believe in attacking people, I do believe in attacking beliefs.

But if you attack what someone truly believes and has undeniable faith in, then in essence, you're still attacking them. Many people hold their faiths very close to them, and simply aren't accustomed to having their beliefs attacked. (This doesn't happen much in their day-to-day lives, or Sunday School, etc.) I'm not as quick to get irate as many other Christians, because I've developed a sort of tolerance to religious indifference.

That's good to hear, as disregarding information on evolution does nothing to help anyone else's viewpoint anyways.

But people will not believe you if you have claims without backing proof, it's that simple. Otherwise, I could tell you that I flew yesterday by flapping my arms really fast, and cry foul when someone calls me a liar.

This is circular logic, and doesn't necessarily apply to those with opposing viewpoints. Mainly because what I consider to be proof, you may just consider to be a coincidental set of circumstances...or may even disregard them in their entirety. In most cases, this still doesn't prove that they're untrue...it just proves that you find little relevance in the matters being discussed.