"Creation Science" experiments.

You just proved my point. Even though I went through great links to describe a completely hypothetical situation you still could not bring yourself to suggest that under those conditions an intelligent designer could be a possibility. On the one hand you assured me that most atheistic evolutionists would not approach science this way, and then on the other hand you demonstrated that is exactly the attitude commonly found.And this is the point I have been trying to get across here. Atheistic evolutionists (AEs) love to gloat that ID proponents do not do science, do not publish in peer reviews, and have no testable theories, and yet you refuse to even see that this is because you don't even allow for the possibility. It is not even in your vocabulary. Your attitude is reflected in the way you compare the idea to gremlins and fairies and unicorns, and yes even flying spaghetti monsters.In order to be able to see the evidence you have to at least be willing to allow for the possibility. Again I say that any attempt to put forth science for ID in the wake of such blatant bias, is an exercise in futility.

Actually I think a creationist is exactly what the common definition defines one as: Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings. Of course the most common form of creationism thought of in this debate is Biblical creationism.

Contrary to missing the point my friend, I am very aware of it. More so than you know. I have been saving this "can of worms" till I thought the discussion had matured to this level, and I think maybe it has, so here goes. As shocking as this may sound to you, everything you mentioned above regarding prediction, verification, and inductive testing, is affirmed by creationists and ID scientists regarding the theory of intelligent design.The problem is not in the existence of the data that supports ID, the problem is in "the eye of the beholder." You see, AEs can not see the evidence for God for the same reason a burglar can not find a cop.

Actually yes I can. I can name a few as a matter of fact. But why would I bother? The thought of jogging in place or pedaling one of those stationary bikes for hours and hours upon end, boars me to tears before I even start. I like to see some ground covered for my efforts. Again... it would be an exercise in futility without you even acknowledging ID as a viable possibility next to AE.I say that because you and I know how the conversation would go. I would present scientist "A" who did ID research #1, #2, and #3, and published his results in peer review literature a, b, and c. Then you would come along and attack scientist A's credentials, thereby claiming to have discredited all of his research, and then the icing on the cake will be when you call all of the peer review journals and literature "nothing but pseudo-science, not recognized by the REAL scientists." And the same will go on for my presentation of Scientist B, C, D, E, F, G........and so on.So before we even start such a conversation we would need to both agree on what constitutes "real" science, what constitutes a real scientist, what counts as real research, and finally what counts as peer review publications. If you can't define all of those terms without in someway excluding or disqualifying the concept of Intelligent Design before we even start, then the point I've made all along has just been validated.

I am glad to see you using "current level of ignorance" (i.e. current observation and knowledge base) as an anchor to reality. I say this because I would point out that according to our "current level of ignorance" regarding laws of physics and the finite universe, its origin requires a cause which, when traced back logically, would require something infinite and self sustaining to exist (in order for anything now to exist) which is also capable of causing at least one observable universe.Unless you want to argue that the current laws of cause and effect go out the window prior to the universes existence, and anything goes prior to that? But if you make that your argument, then you can not now use "current levels of ignorance" as an anchor to reality. Because then elves or unicorns or anything could be true and just as valid if you toss aside current levels of knowledge and observation. However if we stick with current levels of knowledge and understanding then there would be a valid scientific reason to suspect something very unique (supernatural) had to have had a hand in our existence.

In truth all theories start as a sort of a "myth," which makes some claims in reality and as the evidence is compiled, that myth becomes more and more believable until we no longer regard it as a myth. So creation started as a myth which made claims about the origin of the universe, the solar system, Earth, and life... So what? The question then becomes, "Is there any evidence to suggest that this myth is real?" But if you start with the attitude that no matter what the evidence seems to suggest, it has to mean something else...well then you will never see anything. I understand the apprehension. I mean if you allow the evidence to point to an intelligent designer, then that means creation is true, and if creation is true that means the Bible is the word of God, and then that means we are culpable for what we do. OOOOOps!!!! We're all in a load of deep doo doo.But what if God knew we were gonna screw it up and so He already planned a way to fix it for us? But I know now I'm sounding preachy so I'll stop. I would need an example of "invoking a violation of known physical laws" in order to respond. Currently I know of no such violations.

This is true. But I'll bet you're a lot more confident driving family and friends in the car, with the knowledge it was designed......rather than blown together by a chance wind storm and lightning strikes.

Again, post 155 third paragraph.

And all of my posts since I started commenting, have been explaining why the question is not valid. For anyone to attempt such a feat would be similar to the wisdom of putting braille on the sign in this link.
ForbiddenThe blind will never see it until its too late and hits em square in the face.

Actually time is a human invention and therefore only relevant within the construct of human thought. Therefore for humans to "think" about what was before there was a universe is completely logical. We observe the effects of decay, rust, erosion, and particle break down and call it "aging" but in truth, our invention of time has nothing to do with those effects.In this way time is similar to a number line a teacher has drawn on the board before her students. Though it ends at each edge of the board, the arrows signify it continuing on. We can imagine it carrying on infinitely in both directions. Since we "drew" the time line we can also conceive of time infinitely in both directions.

I said a myth "of sorts," meaning a concept explaining the occurrence of a specific phenomena. Isn't that what the definition of a hypothesis is?

Lets say hypothetically I accept that. How did the first organism complete with reproductive capabilities form? Didn't Miller suggest a random lighting strike? I am saying the concept of "aging" is a human invention. Not the current process of things wearing out. We call it aging but things were not originally designed to wear out. And there will come a day when our physical bodies take on an incorruptible nature and no longer wear out. When this occurs "time" as we know it will have no real meaning to us.

Note that you referred to all of them as "concepts" and not laws or phenomena with physical properties. Time is a human "concept."

If that be true, does it not concern you in the least that these precious experiences of consciousness you now enjoy, is but a single flash of a fire flies tail on a warm summers night? That the joys of holding your first baby in your arms, or the passion of seeing your young beautiful bride a glow next to the flickering fireplace, will all one day soon vanish from all existence? Does not your heart ache for the gentle mothers kiss which once was, and now is forever laid to rest in yonder grave?If this be all, then truly a sick joke mother nature has played upon us. To give us only a glimmer of joy and to so quickly steal it away. What is the point? Why not just leave us in that state of "phosphate ash" from whence we came? Why not leave us to be dumb animals of the forest who are unaware of these things? Dumb animals who have no needs beyond an empty belly?But seeing that we are so feeble and yet so rare a creature in all the constellations, and death so swift and final an adversary, knocking at each one of our doors, should we not give more than just a wink at the claims of a man who claimed to offer us eternal life? More than just a snicker at this man they said could heal the sick and raise the dead, walk on water, and who is said by many to have risen from the tomb? I mean if death be so sure and lasting a fate awaiting us each and every one, then what harm there be in examining with a little more care the claims of an ancient carpenters son?

I'm getting the picture in my head of a man on a plane in which hijackers have taken over. They are in the pitch darkness of night, and being told that in a little while they will eventually all be tossed feet first out the door into the unknown darkness. Some passengers are telling the man that he'll be alright because the plane is low and over water. They assure him that he will probably just skip on top of the water a little and that will be it. But others insistently warn him that they are flying very high and over land so he better put on a parachute. The man looks those passengers in the eyes and replies, "That's OK... I'll worry about it after I get tossed out. Right now I've got more important things to worry about."