I get the point. ;-) Indeed...

---

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

Characteristics of Christian supernaturalism

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism Characteristic

Cosmology: eternal multiverse / single transcendent beginning

Time: infinite space time foam / finite duration

Laws of physics: breakdown at 10-43 sec. / fixed

Fine tuning: explained by infinite # universes / extreme fine tuning is designed

Probability: only likely events will occur / creation involved miracles that could not occur by chance

---

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

I'll say this because it is true and a fact.

ID needs to go and learn what science is because he does not know what it is.

This is a fact. Anyone who wants to red X this post are also showing that they do not know what science is.

This is not a flame, and it is not hate. It is a fact.

ID comes to this thread claiming over and over again that ID is science when it is not.

I mean it very kindly when I sincerely say that ID is making a fool of himself when he tries to insist that ID is science when it is not.

Please learn what flame and hate are while you are learning what science is.

Have a nice day. :)

---

Reality Internet Personality

I have posted this at least twice. When I did it seems you have either forgot or did not read it the first time or second time around.

You yourself brought up this point, it was answered.

One more time...

Some here should look up the definition of science... ...just saying!

Have a nice day. LMAO!

---

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

I have posted this at least twice. When I did it seems you have either forgot or did not read it the first time or second time around.

You yourself brought up this point, it was answered.

One more time...

Some here should look up the definition of science... ...just saying!

Have a nice day. LMAO!

Bull S... argument

---

I have posted this at least twice. When I did it seems you have either forgot or did not read it the first time or second time around.

You yourself brought up this point, it was answered.

One more time...

Some here should look up the definition of science... ...just saying!

Have a nice day. LMAO!

I read the article. It repeats the same argument that because things look designed, they must be designed. I counter that, as a scientist, i need some experimental proof that things are designed. That is how science works. Here's a thought experiment. If humans were designed and placed here 80,000-200,000 years ago, why do humans all have unique DNA sequences? Did the designer create 1000s of distinct models at the same moment? Why did the designer create a series of simpler models (neanderthals back to lucy) over the preceding few million years? Why did it take 3.5 billion years of experimentation (from simple bacteria onwards) for the designer to finally create humans? Why did the designer not use their own biological complexity as a template? How did the designer(s) maintain continuity over 3.5 billion years of creating new organisms? How does the ID hypothesis explain these observations?
Thinking like this is what we scientists do. Then we design experiments to test which of these might be true. If you are truly interested in dialog about this issue, I would appreciate your thoughts on the comments I made above.

---

Ah, you uesed this '?'. Yes, that is what scientist do! Slowly but surely I'm buying into the fact that you "might" be a scientist! Lot's of good questions too!

---

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

You: ID theory does not make any useful predictions

Me: I gave you the link and an answer. You didn't have to like it but that is the answer, it does.

---

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

another link for you...

---

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

Here's a little quote from the link you posted ID :) Should help keep me on-topic (that's my hypothesis anyway :))

we can make testable predictions about what we should find if intelligent causation was at work

So, to start. A teeny list of the things an intelligent designer might not want on their CV:

1. Human sinusses (wrong way up... would drain a lot better if we went around on all fours)

2. Laryngeal nerve from the brain (goes via the aortic arch... what's that about then?)

3. The appendix (flawed design? Or shrunken vestige of an herbivorous past which the designer forgot to remove?)

4. Testicles (outside of the body or they don't work, and forefront. Terrible design. Better protected in all other mammals... Note: No temperature problems with ovaries.)

5. Human eye (Well, it's a mess isn't it. To quote the biologist Frank Zindler: “As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable.”

Something else I found on a blog discussing the issues of imperfections in human design:

No good civil engineer would place the sewer right next to the playground.
Respiratory and digestive systems crossing at the pharynx wasn't overly bright, either

There are so many more... like junk DNA or why onions have more DNA than you do which suggests the fruit fly is more efficiently designed than we are.

Could there be more than one designer at work do you think... with vastly differing levels of intelligence? :)

There are so many more...

Well, Adam and Eve, created Perfect. Then, 'they' Screwed 'it' All Up with their little Episode in The Garden.

And 'it' was Way Way Way more than 6,000 years ago.

GOD, in HIS Infinite Wisdom and Perfection, allowed 'Evolution' to Frakk The Code and 'Create' The Imperfect HuWoMan.

Mitochondrial 'Eve' and Mr. Y-Chromosome Adam never never never Ever The Same Again.

Now, A Few Organisms Many Many Many Light Years Away, did not Frakk The Garden Ritual, and Live In Quite Perfect Harmony/Existence.

Yep. So I Know. So 'it' 'is'.

Ripped DEM Brainiac Atheists a New One wif dat.

heeeheeeheee 97 to 4. Oooopsie, Dat Don't Equal 100. Oh Yeah. Sweetness.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Ah, you uesed this '?'. Yes, that is what scientist do! Slowly but surely I'm buying into the fact that you "might" be a scientist! Lot's of good questions too!

So may be you could answer some of the questions or provide some commentary on them? Thats how a scientific dialog would proceed. For example, why were males designed with nipples?

---

Why do you assume perfection?

---

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

Ah, you uesed this '?'. Yes, that is what scientist do! Slowly but surely I'm buying into the fact that you "might" be a scientist! Lot's of good questions too!

So may be you could answer some of the questions or provide some commentary on them? Thats how a scientific dialog would proceed. For example, why were males designed with nipples?

Why do you also expect perfection? You are not, the universe is not, nature is not. And Dull pointed out why there is no such thing as perfection in this verse.

---

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

Sweetness! WHOOT! +1 ;-)

---

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

Of course there's no such thing in evolution as perfection, look at the human kind:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Of course there's no such thing in evolution as perfection, look at the human kind:)

What is awesome is that evolution explains the human need to see patterns and intelligence in nature when there is none. So evolution can explain IDs need to see god, but IDs god cannot explain evolution.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Of course there's no such thing in evolution as perfection, look at the human kind:)

What is awesome is that evolution explains the human need to see patterns and intelligence in nature when there is none. So evolution can explain IDs need to see god, but IDs god cannot explain evolution.

The thing is, if he really wants the answers (Robert), he should have an open mind towards the evolution theory and not pursuing his point all the time.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Why did the "designer" wast all of that time "designing" an appendix for humans or legs for a whale?

---

Mutations my friend, imperfections caused by evolution and probably ID too...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures