What exactly is ID?

I see your game, and I'm no longer willing to play it.I have offered you detailed evidence for everything I've posted - many many times.I have asked you for ONE thing and you've refused to provide it:"Give us a detailed description of the mechanism the Jew Wizard is using to poof these things into existence."You seem to think it's my job to give you the education you missed during your homeschooling. It isn't.This is tit for tat. I've given you an entire cheerleading squad full of tit. Time for you to put up that one tat.

Are you F'in serious?So, let's review. Your homeschooling didn't include:
Biology
Counting
Sexual Reproduction
-and now-
The concept of "before" and "after".IF I BOTHERED to answer you, your next response would be to deny the letters can be combined into words which carry meaning.Clearly you don't have anything to back up your claim so you are merely denying every aspect of every post.Fact: Your religion was stolen by Jewish goat herders who were so lazy and so unimaginative, they merely renamed things rather than come up with stories of their own.It's make believe.If you want to reject all of science. Feel free. Just don't ever go to a doctor.

Timmy, when you use words you don't understand you make yourself look even dumber.

This question literally is unreadable.I've beat you to the punch and rejected all your vowels and punctuation.Until you can prove to me without using vowels or punctutation that vowels and punction exist, you can't use them to explain anything.Kind of a pain the ass when you are debating a mirror, isn't it?

Not a valid response to the post.Go back and try again.

You fail.Science advances by creating models which BETTER PREDICT future evidence.ID offers NO predictions. ID further does not adequately explain EXISTING data. Nor does it describe a mechanism by which anything it claims is happening could happen.That's NOT a theory. That's barely even make believe.You keep trotting it out, but you have YET to provide ANY evidence in support of your claims.All you do is ask us to prove that your unproven claims have been disproved.It's not our job to disprove something for which you've offered no evidence. It's YOUR job to offer evidence to support your claim, then we get to poke holes in that evidence.Obviously we haven't been able to poke holes in your lack of evidence because your claim that the Jew Wizard uses undetectable Jew Beams is present with absolutely no support whatsoever.

So you are claiming that having NO evidence to support the existence of the Jew Wizard is proof that his exists.You HONESTLY can present that argument with a straight face? No. Our dogma insists that "reality is real and non-reality is not".The problem you are having is that your claims not only reject reality, but rely on non-reality as a substitute.

No, you've denied understand how to count. You've claimed to not understand chronological time.That's not counter an argument, that's just being a douche bag. You can't claim design if you can't explain how design can happen.I'm going to write this slow. See if you can get a friend to help you understand.Evolution ASSUMES that life exists because it is a fact that it does. Evolution does not need to explain where life came from because it does not attempt to prove the existence of life.ID ASSUMES that there is a mechanism through which design is done in order to prove that there is design. That's ASSUMING that there is design in order to prove design.That's a monumental fail.By those standards, ALL suggestions are equally valid.For example:
Intelligent Falling doesn't need to explain the force of attraction between two objects. The fact that there is a force is evidence enough that the Designer is pushing things together.Only in THAT case we can ACTUALLY demonstrate that there is a force.In YOUR case you can't even demonstrate design.Pathetic! So to the list of counting, chronological time, sexual reproduction and basic biology we can now add history and anthropology.Sorry, Beavis but animism =/= evolution in any way shape or form.Seriously, did you attend even a day of school in your entire life? Again with the gibberish.

Because Newton made observations of the physical world and drew conclusions based on those observations.His observations were incomplete and as a result his conclusions were incomplete.However, the observations and conclusions he made were not in and of themselves invalid.So:
Observation -> ConclusionMeanwhile, the ID movement works in a RADICALLY different way:
Conclusion -> ObservationThey have their conclusion: "An invisible Jew Wizard poofs things into existence".Then they go looking for things to observe which they feel support their claim. They ignore things which dispute their claim.Further they repeat mistakes which they KNOW have been disproven.ID can't "change" sufficiently because it, at it's core, is a political movement, NOT a scientific one.

TRader, did you bother to read the "wedge document" which was linked for you?Can you name ONE scientific theory which had a political strategy document laying out a 20 year plan for its acceptance? In ANY field? In the ENTIRE history of science?No. You can't. Because it has NEVER happened in the ENTIRE history of science.That's because there is NO REASON to have a strategy if your claim is RIGHT.

So, YES you have read the Wedge Document and NO you can't name a single scientific theory which has needed a 20 year strategy plan.What does that tell you about ID and the people pushing it?

Meaning "the fossil record is false if time does not occur chronologically". That's the argument from douchebaggery. The Rosetta Stone can be examined and reproduced. It could be clay with pressed symbols, it could be clay formed through a mold, it could be hard stone etched by scrapping, it could be hard stone which was chissled - EACH of those processes leaves evidence. We can examine the evidence and recreate the stone using similar techniques. It's called experimental archaeology.Therefore we DO know the mechanism.In the case of ID you can't even confirm that there IS a mechanism. You allege design out of laziness and proclaim it "Jew Magic Beams" then wipe your hands and pretend you are done. ID ASSUMES there is design - but can't prove it.
ID then ASSUMES there is a designer - because one must exist if there is design (which remains an unproven assumption).
ID then ASSUMES There is a mechanism through which the designer (which is ASSUMES exists) did the designing (which it ASSUMES happened).That's 3 MAJOR assumption and NO evidence to support any of them. ID CAN'T detect marks of design if it doesn't know HOW or WHAT did the designing!You can't determine that something was made through a process unless you know what the process is that made it.You can't determine that a designer designed something unless you know what this designer is and how they design.You can't determine that a design was made unless you know what designs and how it designs.It's a house of cards and each card is made of tissue paper.You have NOTHING but a circular argument. Really? Let's review: IF doesn't try to prove the mechanism of how falling gets implemented because IF assumes there is a mechanism. Why? Because it's a logical necessity. If we detect falling, it means also that there was a intelligent faller and a mechanism that was used to implement the falling.Given your statement and my statement above explain to us the difference between "Intelligent Falling" and "Intelligent Design"....what you can't? Didn't think so. I'm significantly more educated than yourself. Animism is not evolution. Animism states that everything has a spirit, including rocks and water.Show me where evolution says anything about inanimate objects evolving. Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Oh, you wanna play? Okay. What is a meltdown?
What is "occurred"?
What is an experiment?
What is "longer"? What is "1"?
What is "not"?
What is "EQUAL"? What is "show"?
What is "tests"?
what is "Earth"? What is "slow"?
What is "down"?...See how helpful your method is in debate.If you want to have a discussion, we'll be happy to do so on your terms.Go ahead and define in detail every single word you are using and prove to us that they are what you say they are.Otherwise, your arbitrary use of a subjective word like "down" is completely meaningless.Let's see if we can't bring this entire discussion to a screeching halt over your personal douchebaggery.

For the record, clown college is one of the hardest schools in the US to get into. They accept very few students out of their pool of applications.

I'm going to keep this simple for you and hopefully you can follow along.You are claiming there is a difference between these two things:
"Fabrication" and "Specification".Your definition of each boils down to: "Unique" vs "non-unique".A fabrication is unique. There are no other examples of it.
A specification is non-unique. There are other examples of it.This is predicated on the idea that you have ALL the information which will ever be available to you from the past, present and future. That's simply not reality.If I present you with a pattern out of a collection of patterns which you can not see, you can't tell me whether or not the pattern I've given you is unique or non-unique because you can't see the other patterns.The ONLY thing you can test it against is other patterns you've been presented. You have a limited data set.If I present you with additional patterns, you start to build a bigger data set and patterns which HAD BEEN unique suddenly are no longer unique.However, patterns which are NOT unique never BECOME unique.In other words, of the two columns of evidence - examples only ever move from your column of "unique" to our column of "not unique" and NEVER EVER EVER the other way around.And the more information collected, the more often things move from your column to ours.Yet, you are confident that your column is correct and ours is incorrect because you believe that you have items in your column which will ALWAYS be there no matter how much information is collected.WHY?What experience in the past has given you a reason to believe this?The ONLY thing your claim has ever witnessed is a steady loss of evidence as more and more data is collected.Shouldn't it be the OTHER WAY AROUND?If you were right, you should be GAINING evidence, not losing it.Surely, even YOU must admit that you don't have ALL the evidence which could ever be collected.Yet, you are willing to claim that no matter what the future evidence will present, the constant ongoing pattern of you consistently losing examples to us will somehow reverse itself.WHY?Set aside the fact that you can't define or detect the Jew Wizard. Set aside the fact that you can't define or detect Magic Jew Beams.Just look at your claim of unique evidence. It's unfounded.