Is my logic in regards to Intelligent Design sound?

You have convinced me that it is much more likely that the universe was created by an infinite number of monkeys than by any god.

A lot of arguments are convincing to those who want to hear. The trick is to find an argument that convinces sceptics, and that kind or reasoning is sadly lacking in ID circles.

The real issue in ID is whether current scientific theories are powerful enough to account for the diversity of life we see around us. The majority of scientists, the VAST majority actually, are quite happy that it is.

ID of course is not a theory in its own right, but a comment on Darwinism, without which it falls flat on its face. It claims that Darwinism is unable to explain the diversity of living things, and that THEREFORE God is responsible for all life. There are two weaknesses with this position:

a) As mentioned above, the view that Darwinism cannot explain the living world is believed by only a small minority of scientists - the ID folks

b) ID is not a scientific theory because 'God' is not a scientific theory. It makes no predictions [the ID 'prediction' that life is irreducibly complex is a circular argument] and there is no conceivable objective observation which would show it to be false. Therefore it cannot be considered scientific.

The truth of the Gamblers fallacy, is that at the begining, before any turns have been taken, the odds are indeed (1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2). Your greatest problem is the time limit. The Earth is only, by most estimates 4.5 billion years old. You don't have unlimited time or unlimited monkeys. You have to explain the statistical improbability of advanced life forms developing without intelligent influence in a relatively small amount of time, with a relatively small number of genetic errors.

The second problem is proving that genetic errors in a highly complex genetic structure are not restricted. It is more logical to assume that genetic errors, which do not result in immediate death of the organism, are in a very limited area of probability - small changes like color or size are much more likely than large changes like the simulatenious development of interreliant yet radically different and highly specialized tissues as found in the human eye.

The third problem that needs to be addressed transcends genetics. All life starts with a micoscopic bag of fluid, which contains tiny structures that work in harmony to burn fuel, grow, and replicate. A mere error repeated millions of times over millions of years isn't sufficient to account for a single living cell. All of the errors have to happen at once, in the least random fashion. Science has yet to create a machine capable of replicating itself. Imagine nature creating and launching a communications satellite as a natural process when sand and water are combined. A communications satillite is so much easier to create than a self replicating machine.

As Feynman said, the question is not whether it is possible, or even whether it is true, but which alternative is more likely. If you came across a Harley in the desert, would your first thought be that it came from evolution? Of course not. You have seen them before - they come from a manufacturing plant. A Harley-Davidson motorcycle pales in comparision to the machine of the human body.

Perhaps your unusual adversity to the obvious comes from having too narrow a concept of God. The simplest definition of God is an intelligent being that creates worlds and then populates them with life. Mankind is almost to the point of engineering new worlds and meeting this criteria; is it too hard to believe some other race of intelligent life beat us to the punch?

Doesn't the universe violate the second law of thermodynamics - Nope. Sandcastles do not spontaneously appear in the beach - Try an argument that is not oriented toward 6 year olds in Jesus camp. It takes a human to come along and create the sandcastle, otherwise it will never happen. - You said one thing right. The same with a universe, right? - Again, try an argument for adults, not 6 year olds. I'm an Atheist, but my friend set me a challenge to produce an argument for intelligent design. Anyone care to refute it?) - There is a difference between an argument and an intelligent argument.

Your looking in the wrong places. Try looking at DNA and see how there are actual codes in each strand designed for a specific purpose in the body. Look at the existence of space, time, planets, stars and life itself. Everything is moving. Planets and stars turn. Time moves. Life begins and then it ends. In order to have motion you need a cause for that motion. The only possible and logical explination for the start of motion is God. God is the infallable being that has no beginning and no end. He is the reason for life, stars, time planets and everything in existence. We are not self sustaining and neither is the universe self sustaining. Without God holding everything together you would atoms rupturing across the universe creating a quantom explosion that would destroy everything right down to nothingness.

Im not going to bother with reading it. But there are to many miracles in this world for God not to have a hand in it. And all I say is science is partially right but the timeline is off. God created this world and everything in it. What people cannot understand is yes there is evolution but the evolution started with our father(God). He created animals from the only life he knew, Himself. We didn't evolve from animals like everyone thinks. God created Man, and animals from himself, of course their are similar DNA markers. People don't think God could creat a similar animal from another animals DNA. God started everything. You will know the truth one day but it is up to you to accept it.

I read it. I guess it is okay with the facts in which you base your argument. But there really is so much more to it. If you actually went in depth on this you might see that roulette as your argument is pretty weak.

From what I see in your logic, you believe in total random chaos...that is an object in motion strikes another object in motion it simply causes a counter motion...and there is no thought to what created the motion in the first place...that nothing is created as a result of anything...and if anything is created it is pure chance that it occurred...

6) PROFIT

LOL...

creationists don´t understand that we are part of a galaxy of 200 to 400 billions of stars, many of which have their own planets... and we are only one of thousand galaxies!

This universe existed for 6 billions years, everithing necessary for life to take place had both time and space to happen.

good argument pal.

I'm not going to take the time but I wonder, why would you make an argument that you were'nt already sure was logically sound?