Summations Only

This above is a prime example of an opinion which deserves absolutely no respect, primarily because it is wrong.In fact, opinions in general are not deserving of respect in situations where the opinion involves the exact subject matter under investigation. In such situations, your opinion is due only the respect which your defense earns for it.And of course some opinions are simply wrong. If you hold a wrong opinion, people might ignore your error out of politeness unless it turns out that your opinion really does affect them. In that case, the only respect your opinion is due is a "respectful" deconstruction and demolition.Let's not forget, after all, that EvC is a debate site on which the merits of ID, Creationism, and the Theory of Evolution are all topics for analysis and discussion. The rules of engagement here are also pretty clear; bring your logical arguments based on evidence, or stay home.

Why are you enclosing your own, first-time-posted comments in quote boxes? Do you just like having boxes around what you write? For the purposes of discussion, let's ignore the fact that there is very good physical reason why the electrons were not bound up into atoms back when all protons, photons and electrons were in a high energy state, and accordingly that the big expansion of the universe completely explains and is consistent with an initially opaque universe.It is only your assumption that there must be some ultimate higher purpose to every detail that causes you to question the sufficiency of said answer. In short, you are suggesting that your personal incredulity is something that is of importance. There is simply no reason to believe that line of thought is reasonable. Just because three-year-old children insist on saying "why" to every response, right or wrong that their parents give, does not mean that emulating a three year old is a reasonable course of action. Do you really think that three year old asking why the sky is blue even understands his dad's discussion of scattering before asking the next "why"? The technical explanations are completely sufficient. We cannot see light through an opacity, and we understand why the opacity existed. You aren't three years old anymore. It appears that not having an ultimate purpose for every detail of the universe is uncomfortable and unsettling for you. Your mistake is projecting that nonsense onto everyone else. I'll have to admit to finding your attitude puzzling if not inane. Even if you accept, as I do, that God is the author of the universe, it still does not follow that any IDer had any reason or intent regarding the properties of the universe during those early few hundred thousand years when the universe was utterly inhospitable to life.

To help clarify what you mean here, can you provide an example of an inflexible science dogma that has damaged its image? I don't think it is possible to keep politics out of science, because many political decisions either are, or should be based on a consideration of the science. For example, the science showing the cigarettes were harmful to your health had unavoidable political and economic consequences. But perhaps I am missing your meaning here. Quite often there is certitude, or at least a degree of confidence so high that it ought to require.

Is this an example of the kind of mutual respect, non-toxic language you are talking about.If so, I'm down with that. I get to continue my testy examination of and discourse about all things ID.

Perhaps, but the original post is riddled with insulting rhetoric. Knowing my own tendency towards testiness, I've held off from ripping through that screed in the manner that any OP full of nonsense should be critiqued.I have noticed that jchardy has not been all that responsive to complaints that he is presenting a strawman version of science, or that he lumps all opponents of ID or Creationism onto the atheists pile, or that he has seemingly no knowledge of the history/beginnings of ID and blames science for the close ties of ID and fundamentalism.Further, in the post I objected to, it is apparent that jchardy is firmly attached to his own "spiritual connect to the universe" dogma that is apparently not to be questioned.I accept your own observation that the tone of the discussion here is way too often sarcastic and well, testy. But the opposite of testiness must not be avoiding critical analysis of opinions on ID, creationism, or science, or biting one's tongue when untruths are posted.

This characterization is wrong, and the analogy is completely inapt. Einstein's thought experiments were based on hypothetical scenarios that showed the ramification of postulates that were based on observed phenomena. The thought experiments were not random speculations and guesses divorced from any and all evidence.I would characterize Einstein's thought experiments as hypothesis generating activity, where the result of the activity is predictions that were both falsifiable and explicitly logically (i.e. mathematically) required by the hypotheses. In other words, Einstein's thought experiments represent science activity of the highest order. Quite unlike your speculation.As an aside, there is no doubt about in my mind, that there is an "I'm like Einstein, struggling in the patent office" corollary to Godwin's law.

You've already admitted that those concepts are not evidenced. No, but if I don't accept those concepts, I'm in denial of the truth, according to you. No, as a matter of fact, we don't. Even Einstein was only "in the zone" for a couple of decades. I've never been on Einstein's level and you are not currently there.

off topic; removed by posterEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't believe jchardy was ever sincere about his intentions. His initial posting reeked of disdain for science and the scientific method, even while insisting that all opinions ought to be respected. And if that weren't enough, he cited scientific mumbo-jumbo at creationist like rates.I find it quite laughable that the man would find insult from being called a non-scientist, after the junk he posted here.I'm glad to see the back of the man. He had absolutely nothing to offer.