Theory canot ever trump observation, ever. What don't you understand about science? This simple statement is very true.

There is NO observation of Neo-Darwinism.

There is observation of intelligent design.

This simple statement is very true.

Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both based their theories on observation. That does blow your understanding completely out of the water.

There is observation of intelligent design.

This simple statement is very true.

ID, you have to give us more than this if we are to have a reasoned discussion. Its clear you feel that you have strong evidence for ID. Could you just provide some detail on the observation of ID you refer to so that we can discuss it?

---

"Millions of people around the world believe we have been visited in the past by extraterrestrial beings, but what if it were true? Did ancient aliens really help to shape our history...
...and, if so, what if there were clues left behind, sometimes hiding in plain sight? What if we could find the evidence?"

What is the best evidence/argument for the ancient alien astronaut theory?

ID, you have to give us more than this if we are to have a reasoned discussion. Its clear you feel that you have strong evidence for ID. Could you just provide some detail on the observation of ID you refer to so that we can discuss it?

I think it is because he sees patterns in nature and believes all (overwhelming majority of) patterns must be inventions of intelligence.

---

Intelligent Design does not tell anyone who the designer is. That is up to you. You can believe in little green beings or gray ones for that matter. You can believe in a God of any religion of your choice, even Thor.

Okay, so what percentage of Intelligent Design proponents, advocates, protagonists and followers does not believe that the designer is the God of Christianity?

---

Intelligent Design does not tell anyone who the designer is. That is up to you. You can believe in little green beings or gray ones for that matter. You can believe in a God of any religion of your choice, even Thor.

Okay, so what percentage of Intelligent Design proponents, advocates, protagonists and followers does not believe that the designer is the God of Christianity?

That is just a ploy by the discovery institute in their latest monologue on the definition of ID, thinking that if the designer is not defined as God then it cannot be defined a religious, so that it cannot be excluded from science lessons.

Even our I.D. has stated his designer is God.

The thing is why he persists in pushing rubbish when he isn't going to find any converts here?

Maybe to poor fellow isn't quite right? :-(

Cheers.

And you can't have a scientific theory in which one parameter (the designer) is not defined but can take any value you feel like...

---

There isn't any evidence for Neo-Darwinism.

I have given much evidence for design.

I have asked all of you to given evidence for Neo-Darwinism. None of you have given any evidence other then your faith based evidence that one cell in our distant past has changed over time to all the life forms we see today. And it for sure is faith based. There has been no one in any lab who has seen a change from one species to another. There has been no one in the field who has seen one species that changed into another. Your theory cannot be tested. And it is falsifiable.

I have however shown you all design in nature. I have shown this in way of math. It's called the Fibonacci series. This has been tested over and over again and found to be true. This design cannot be found to be falsifiable, it has been tested. You either don't know about science at all or your hate for me is so strong that you persist for reasons of hate, or for some reason you think that just shear numbers of people who believe you false theory will somehow make your theory correct. None of which is true. Design can be tested and fond true. Neo-Darwinism can't be tested and is false untill it can be tested. Just that simple. You all show your lack of knowledge in this science of yours.

Intelligent Design does not tell anyone who the designer is. That is up to you. You can believe in little green beings or gray ones for that matter. You can believe in a God of any religion of your choice, even Thor. The design is intelligent and any reasonable person would accept this. Big government does not like this because it gets in the way of government worship. Big Biz does not like this because it get in the way of us worshipping them. Big schools don't like this because it gets in the way of them getting big government and big biz monies. Pantheism comes to mind. Modernism comes to mind. The cult of science as the engine of progress reached its apogee in England with the Great Exhibition of 1851 held in the Crystal Palace. Darwin and Marx lived in England in 1851. Darwin was elected to the Royal Society in 1853. Marx was the London correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune in 1851. One of the weaknesses of modern science was described by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He noted that a prevailing paradigm often becomes the official doctrine of the science establishment. Most research is devoted to shore up the prevailing paradigm and to reconcile anomalies in the established model.

There are plenty of anomalies in Neo-Darwinism, the lack of hard proof is one that you have so far never gotten over. Yet it is taught in schools all over my country just because brainiac's have sold the public a bill of good that has no goods to it. The king has no clothes, and Neo-Darwinism is a damn sick thing to look at while naked. Yet you all tell the king his clothes are stunning. Shocking if you ask me.

Theory canot ever trump observation, ever. What don't you understand about science? This simple statement is very true.

In fact you HVAE stopped doing science as soon as you stop looking for the truth. If you say---I have the Truth!---and stop looking or stop listening to others then you have stopped doing science all together.

Fine tuned. Just another way to test the theory.

Is the intelligent design theory not falsifiable?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...