Creationism/ID as Science

I agree with you on this, the fact is that people are afraid of science and science advancement, whether from all those monster movies of science turning things into monsters or movies depicting the cold-heartedness of the sciece-based goverment control of humanity. it has all led people to believe that science is evil, wrong, and does nothing but lead us down a path to nothingness
with religion - mostly fundamentalism, people form a shell agenst the idea that the world isn't build by a loving-yet-jealous god

wow, inkorrekt, not this old chessnut again!
sorry but evolution is based on objective evidence, sorry but there is no faith involved (unless you like to say everything takes faith in that case, sports works too)oh yes by the way go tell all those scientists that thier belief in god is really atheism! i mean come on go read about science for once, they have a poll that says at least 40% of all scientists are thiests!

right, and how do you define "Real Science"? it must be really far from what current science is. i'm thinking its some absurd distorted legalist version of the scientific method.
namely it HAS to be able to be experimented on in a lab, because thats the most common objection people give for why evolution isn't science
sorry but if this is your criteria for what science is, then its wrong, since that pretty much kills half of all science

no, you need to read more about how scientists relate fossils to each other, namely the structures of the animal, like bones, limbs,spine,if you want to go to lifeforms within a group such as whale ancsters they look at the body structures like teeth skull detail and how they relate to other lifeforms
whether you like it or not, scienists don't just sit around one day and go "hey you know that skeleton we found last week?" "i think we should place it in the jererastic and tell the rubes its related to fish!" "hohoho!" oh yes the ID "thoery" where anything can mean anything and we don't want to talk about how anything was done who did it and when. yes sir thats a theory alright!
so explain to me oh IDist why our retina is backwards, why would anyone make our eyes less useful by placement? the fact that we have a blind spot makes it appear even more insane from an engineering prespectiveor how about having a large artery running down over the heart, or the crappy way the spine works or the fact that female legs are built all wrong(new one to me) - why are male genitals outside the body? i mean come on even i can figure out that thats hardly a good idea and i'm not some super-all powerful being thats unknown well i can truely say that you have no clue about science,or you wouldn't say such a strange thing, you are not talking about science you are talking about some strawman of scienceAs for ID what can you objectively observe about it? IC is inferrence, information is undefined and meaningless, you can't observe the designer, you can't even tell me what features lead you to believe stuff is designed - and ID lies on the idea that another theory has to be wrong for ID to be right, ID doesn't rest on its own ideas its built on claiming evolution is wrong so the default is a designer, who isn't really intelligent.
this isn't science this is a mockery of science, when you claim that complexity shows intelligentice you have ask who is the designer? he's complex who designed him? ad nausum till you reach the final designer which is a GOD or most cases THE god of christianity..And that is religion and not science!

i'm not sure you even understood what i said, did i say they observe anything in realtime at any point?
no i said they look at the fossils details such as structures of the fossils, and how they relate to other fossils details - you aren't making a strawman you are flatout denying they have a way of showing how fossils relate to each other honestly. the inference is the structures of the fossils did i ever once say 'design'? no i did not i said built,structured, etc - design implies intellience in normal word-usege. as for saying design somehow magically makes you think i admit ID is true, well thats your imagination and nothing more - and things can be designed without intelligence look at crystals they are not designed but have structure and shape that looks like it but the question is why would something of intelligence design things so badly and co-opt things that are already part of a system? evolution easily answers this. can ID answer this that was what i was asking, what does a human designed bridge have to do with it, humans don't design biological systems, they don't have the ability to. human intelligence is very limited and you can't compare living things with nonliving things like animals and bridgesthe fact that ID says complexity=design and some how the intellience designed things like this? is my question can you answer why a being able to design living systems would screw-up so much? but it does, a being able to produce life should be able to produce good designs that work without so many problems, since really why is the only question since ID knows nothing about how things are done. i call it a mockery because you have to keep asking the same question over and over again till you hit a point of illogic, who is the designer? aliens? well if you define complexity as a qualifier to design then whos the aliens designer? as i said you have to come down to god that is not designed and ID doesn't work, because a god is complex so it would be designed, but god is the only thing not designed isn't it?
this is not workable it isn't falsifible, so its not science.
its a mockery of science because it pretends to be science when its not what does this have to do with anything? i'm not talking about god, i'm talking about ID's core idea, which is the inferrence that complexity shows design, but its all a basic plea to religion.its still creationism trying to scam people

how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures? they are nothing alike yes because archeologists have examples and evidence they are man-made, what evidence besides want does ID have? how can you tell something is designed by an intelligence? sorry but those do not work, both forensics and archaeology have to do with man-made things, by definiton since we are human we *KNOW* if something is man-made by the very fact that we are humans, so we have a refrence about this, what criteria can we use to define a biological thing as designed and one that is not? sorry, but the two have evidence and ID does not, if ID does where is it? the only things IDists trot out are fault ridden arguments, like umm this one

it is the same thing, and IC has been found to be baseless and only an infference from someones own viewpoint, it has no evidence. how is it a hang up? we know nothing about this so called designer other than he does screw up if he designs body plans. Why believe ID if evolution answers the questions that are asked and has evidence to suport it. I mean if you want a designer go with TE at least they don't try to deny the designer is god, unlike ID who denies the designer in reality is god ,so they can claim to be science.
as for this: see the problem is i'm using my own Intelligence to come up with things like this, don't you think an intelligence that can design something as importiant as life be about to be intelligent about how its designed? what morality? i didn't say a damn thing about morality, are you infering this from my use of 'good'? when i use the word good, i am saying something that functions and doesn't have any huge flaws in it,
for example a spine that is constructed to stand upright and not give the lifeform back problems because of the flawed way the spine works, this is not something i would do if i could create life, there is not point to it
but we have a theory that explains why we have a spine that isn't quite built for straight up and down use; evolution - namely our spine has along with the rest of us to the point were we can walk mostly upright but its not really built for it since its mostly built for four legs corrputed? by what? this sounds less and less like science and more like religious thought, there is no evidence of any corruption anywhere. fossils and life we have now shows that its been like this for nearly 2 billion years. like i said go read some books on evolution, these things have nothing to do with evolution, ToE has to do with life evolving not matter or the universe
of course a theory has limits its a theory, its limit is what it frames and thoerizes about which is why you will never see any theory outstepping its boundry and talking about another theory. such as evolution talking about atomic theory or germs. and this has what to do with evolution? you are getting abiogenesis mixed up with evolution, talk to chemists about that one what are you talking about? i'm not talking about you, i'm talking about ID as science
but it sounds to me like you got scammed, if you are taking it personally Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

Percy answered this well but i want to answer it since its a reply to me and who is michael denton? why should i care what he thinks? can you answer the question? using words that give people an idea of things work doesn't mean the words equal reality. i mean if i say "the brain is like a computer" does that mean it is a computer? no it does not, infact the brain is nothing like a computer in structure material or functionnether are cells, so other than someones words saying they are how are they related? it is thats why i'm asking it, do you have an answer? they refer to the only intelligence they have, us, if the aliens wanted to speak to us they would use something we would use being that we are the only lifeform that builds artifacts, such as arrowheads i think its obvbious, now can you say the same of some intelligent designer other than us? they determin if there was a struggle by how the body looks how the room in which the body is found to be, the way the death is setup, how it was done and if they find other dna or fingerprints. see the problem is, this doesn't answer anything, as i said before, all of these use refrences from us, as criteria, all three of these sciences are about humans. ID is about the designer not us, so you can't use corrolations of human intelligence to define the designer, unless you want to admit that he isn't intelligent at all or needed, since there seems to be such a derth of information about this so called designer please tell me how knowing next to nothing about said designer is sciencitific or remotely useful in the advancement of mankinds knowledge of the universe?your answer requires us to know about the designer to find design in the univiverse so what can you tell us about this designer, other than its not God no they are not, all of your examples are based on the knowledge that the evidence points to people being the cause, by the way why are you using seti anyway? i don't really consider it anything more than a pipe-dream at this time. what does this even mean? do you mean the aliens? the idea of seti is to send out a signal to see if a lifeform like us sends one back, the logic is that if life is possible here why not somewhere else? why not a lifeform with intelligence like ours? they wouldn't be human anyway unless they were decended from somesort of ape-like animal like us by the gods, what evidence? no one thing you have posted is evidence of anything, its all been a shell game to try to throw people off.so i will ask again:
how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures?
how can you tell something is designed by an intelligence?
what are the criteria of something designed and can you show this.the fact is its up to the IDiest to show ID is true not up to scientists to show its not, the only things i've seen from IDists is "evolution can't account for blah blah (which happens to be untrue if they learned more about ToE) therefor ID is the only answereven IC is bias to ToE, since part of it is that things are too complex for evolution to be the answer so it must have been a designer, because parts can't work without all the other parts, which is wrong.

well then tell the morons trying to push it as science to stop it, because they think it is. by the way evolution isn't about origins its about life that already exists evolving, or did you not get the memo? go read a book on evolution please, otherwise this is irrelevent to this thread