Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

why would you call that evidence and not just my opinion ?[...]

Because - as I keep saying - your opinion is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We can talk about things that can be perceived and scientifically studied - on the existence of which we BOTH agree, like physics, biology, chemistry - the material world. You want to discuss how complex nature is? That's fine. But then people who are psychologically dependent on their imaginary friends have to squeeze god (oh, sorry "intelligent designer") at every opportunity, with no rhyme or reason. And certainly with no evidence. Just because they're not interested in the science - they just want to talk about the big invisible daddy in the sky.

That's the problem with theists - looking for a shortcut to "goddidit", at every opportunity, instead of studying the subject in depth. Learn about evolution and big bang (because you obviously have very vague idea about either of those), instead of trying to extend those concepts into the unknown in order to get the result that you want - magic.

When you have ANY evidence for existence of the designer - we can totally talk about that designer. It's not that until then god doesn't exist, but that until then - it may as well not exist and trying to shoehorn it into science (specially by misattributing your belief to famous scientists, as if that was supposed to prove anything) - is simply dishonest and a waste of time.

ok i will go study up on evolution and biology and chemistry im sure by learning how much much more complex and intricate and coordinated everything is beyond what i know already  will greatly decrease by belief that it had to be intelligently created

[Whateverist]

an intelligent creator gave us our intellect and science

Well sure. How else do people come by such things except as gifts from a benevolent creator genie? I mean, obviously, people aren't able to figure things out or learn things all by themselves. Only special sky papa can do those things.

[Whateverist]

You're a moron..what you shouldn't have done...is google for the first smart sounding person that said something you thought might lend credibility to your position...Jenny.  

That's what you did.  Own it.  If you can't take your own remarks seriously then why should anyone else take them seriously?

no wrong i didnt google for smart sounding people whos opinions matched mine ive known for years that einstein believed in intelligent design to the universe . if your wrong about that maybe your wrong about other things.

Well if your knowing it has withstood the test of time like that it pretty makes it so I guess.  

[jenny1972]

Jenny, what's a scientific theory? In your own words, please.

A theory that is a well tested explanation that unites a wide range of observations

---

Did you seriously just quote the textbook sticker that ID proponents try to get put on biology books?

You are hopelessly, incalculably, overwhelmingly ignorant.

no i didnt it  . was from the judges ruling from the link that RS posted

[SteelCurtain]

THe best evidence against an intelligent designer is the human body.

Either, as science explains and shows quite clearly, we evolved from earlier ancestors, which explains the failings and irregularities of the human body, or the intelligent designer is, frankly, incompetent.

i agree we did evolve from earlier ancestors

...and what about the rest of her post that you ignored?

What about the laryngeal nerve?
What about the fact that our brains have to flip what we see upside down and backwards because of the construction of our eye? Or that the optic nerve creates a blind spot because it runs through the middle of our retina?
What about the fact that you expel waste right next to (and with) your sex organs?
What about the fact that our backs were not meant to be loaded vertically, and our knees are terrible at bipedalism?
How about the fact that our feet unnecessarily have 26 moving parts?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Ugh. I already said I'm sick to death of seeing "theory" misunderstood and abused, as a word.

1. The judge's ruling is not proof, it is evidence because of what he says, and what he bases the proof upon, as a neutral arbiter. In fact, he was probably predisposed to believing in the ID/IC ideas because he is a Christian and one of the most conservative members of that federal district's judiciary.

2. Science (and all theories it contains) will always be open to testing, and never proved, because that's what science is.

That's what keeps science honest and lets us reasonably believe in it at all. It does not mean "this is a guess", it means that is an explanation that fits what we see, whose details survive all current abilities to test it for falsehood.

It's a method of honesty.

Taking the radical ideas of a tiny, tiny number of people, ideas which either have been tested and proven false or which are phrased in a way that is not testable and thus not science, and calling them "a theory too" is to spit in the face of every scientist who has labored lifetimes to unify and test every part of the scientific body of knowledge.

Theory is the highest praise we can heap upon an idea.

Calling somebody's random hunch a theory is to spit on the entire community of science. Just because some (a lot of) people find comfort in the way the woo-woo of those radical ideas sounds, like mystics and their Yoga-Buddhism/Hinduism woo-woo, doesn't mean they are real ideas, which is why they must be subjected to the scientific method, open for reproducible and falsifiable testing. Until that happens, it is not okay to call it "another theory".

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Did you seriously just quote the textbook sticker that ID proponents try to get put on biology books?

no i didnt it  . was from the judges ruling from the link that RS posted

It's the sticker from the books which triggered the whole case. It's amazing that you didn't read anything other than what confirmed your biased position... which, ironically, is the reason they were there.

[robvalue]

People disagree. That doesn't mean that in each case, each opinion is worth the same. If it were, we'd have to seriously consider every lunatic unfalsifiable opinion. Or even falsifiable ones.

If someone disagrees with a well established scientific theory, but cannot present adequate evidence for why they disagree, then their opinion is worth squat. Especially if they are unable to show they even understand what the theory says.

[jenny1972]

i agree we did evolve from earlier ancestors

...and what about the rest of her post that you ignored?

What about the laryngeal nerve?
What about the fact that our brains have to flip what we see upside down and backwards because of the construction of our eye? Or that the optic nerve creates a blind spot because it runs through the middle of our retina?
What about the fact that you expel waste right next to (and with) your sex organs?
What about the fact that our backs were not meant to be loaded vertically, and our knees are terrible at bipedalism?
How about the fact that our feet unnecessarily have 26 moving parts?

im sure we will continue to evolve to eliminate traits that are no longer necessary or needed

[TheRocketSurgeon]

People disagree. That doesn't mean that in each case, each opinion is worth the same. If it were, we'd have to seriously consider every lunatic unfalsifiable opinion. Or even falsifiable ones.

If someone disagrees with a well established scientific theory, but cannot present adequate evidence for why they disagree, then their opinion is worth squat. Especially if they are unable to show they even understand what the theory says.

You know what just happened? Me an' Rob for the two-man tag team Chainsaw of Logic Takedown™!!