Well no, the only nail you hit was the happy land called 'assertion'. restating that IDst do this or that is not the same as showing me how in some rational form, that starting with the natural world, just like you do, observing its order and law, just like you do, testing its properties, just like you do, formulating a hypothesis, just like you do, testing that hypothesis, just like you do, testing the hypothesis over andover again against different properties, just like yiou do, is STARTING WITH A CONCLUSION
First show me some of those tests
id did not start from observing the natural world or it would have come to the conclusion that evolution was responsible for the diversity of life it started from creationism being non acceptable in schools so they cut the word god and replaced it with intelligent designer
then they went back and found stuff that could be evidence of an intelligent designer ignoring the FACT that we have already figured out how the EYE formed how the FLAGELLUM formed and all where natural processes
hey look thats the very samething you do, I believe its called science, not conclusions
Ok show me the observations made, THE TESTS MADE, AND THE NULL HYPOTHESIS.
What evidence that you posesess could possibly be contrary to the idea of design. You see frako, your still mixing up conclusions with processes.
What evidence do you have that could possibly be contrary to the pink unicorn creating everything yesterday the way it was yesterday.
The evidence i present is evolution and natural processes, introducing unknowables as gods and theories like the one above serve NO purpose and DO NOTHING to advance the knowlage of mankind. If for every unknown man has encountered so fare throughout history was answered by god did/dose it we would still be swinging from treas and primarily eating bananas
Even if Evo were true it would have nothing to say about whether it were designed or not, speaking strickly about change and natural selection. However when we add the obvious order and law in, that is apart of the same scientific investigation, it brings design to light, as much as it would anyother PROCESS, that is stickly scientific
Where are your EXPERIMENTS and TESTS that prove that ORDER AND LAW cannot acure naturally and NEED A DESIGNER, and what is the NULL hypothesis of your hypothesis that law and order need a designer.
its this small, yet vitally important point, that is the debarkation in these legal processes. So it appears, when given the misguided veiw presented by "scientist", that ID is in contrast to evo, which of course it is not. It is this misguided veiw that misrepresents the scientific approach to the process of ID.
What is the process of id what does it explain, how does it explain certain mechanisms.
The inteligent designer did it does not give much information of how when ....
It is about as useful as the a bomb was made by man statement is actually useful in discerning what an a bomb actually is how it works how it was made by man the history of the a bomb ....
this is also why most of these fellas wont meet you publically in debate, because when these simple facts are presented, it shows the complete fallacy of the misguded veiw of "scientist" concerning ID and it shows the secular fundamentalist humanists veiwpoint in a unfavorable light
No most of these fellas are tired from laughing at ridiculous arguments creationists and ides make.
If evolution where true:
- then why are the monkeys in the zoo not evolving in to man
- then where are all the white and the black monkeys that white people and black people evolved from
- then you can act as a monkey an go on about killing people
- we would see a dog give birth to a cat once in a while
- we would find life in peanut butter
- because it is just a theory
Creationism is true:
- because god says so
- because there is evidence of whales on the moon that where shot up form the earth cracking open at the start of the flood
- because we found dinosaurs living today, recent past..
- nothing can come from nothing (except when god dose it, and the big bang was not nothing it was a singularity)
ID is true:
- because complicated things need a designer
- because the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved
- because the eye could not have evolved
- because you have law and order and someone has to make that
- because the world looks like it was designed
Statements like, and the LACK OF PAPERS awaiting peer review do not encourage scientists to go and have formal debates whit those people it probably only encourages them to fight for better education of those morons
and you had your shot at the Dover trial remember the trial where most of the experts on intelligent design WOULD NOT support it under oath, The trial where ID lost so bad you did not go further along the legal process.
because i see no order all i see is chaos.
™ Version 4.2
