What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[AAA]

Notice how AAA is staying right away from supporting his actual own position, because he realises it's entirely unscientific. Instead he attacks the position of science and reason.

There's no way this guy is a science student. We had this all out before. If he somehow really is, this abandonment of the scientific method when it contradicts fairy tail narratives is going to be a very real hindrance to any scientific career. I'm not kidding. He needs to hear this for his own good.

I don't attack science, I love it. And so far, my academic career hasn't been hindered by my views. You specifically robvalue never respond to my response to you. And intelligent design is not unscientific. It fits the same criteria that any scientific theory about the past fits. Please give me a definition of science that both excludes intelligent design while allowing a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

[AAA]

So far the argument boils down to "yeah but it can't be evolution" (argument from incredulity) or "it must be designed" (fallacy of proof by assertion).

Asking "why don't people automatically assume it's a creator" is one of the weirdest ways of arguing against evolution I've ever come across.

Someone let me know if you get answers to your questions that aren't fallacious please and I'll check back in.

I hope I never said it must be designed. I just think that it is the most logical and explanatory cause that has been offered yet. An intelligent being could certainly lead to the structures and intricate mechanisms we see in the cells. There is no debate that this could happen. There is however debate about if naturalistic causes are sufficient. And even if we tried to replicate one in the lab, that would just show us which ones could happen, not necessarily which ones did. This is why empirical science won't do for any theory attempting to explain a historical event.

[AAA]

Hehe, yeah.

I mean, this is literally the argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how this can work!"

Clearly. The solution is to go study, not announce it is wrong. Actual study. It's amazing how many theists expect us to give them a full course in evolution plus all the evidence behind it, when they're too lazy to even pick up a book.

What's this guy going to do in the exam?

Question 1: Give a brief overview of the theory of evolution, in 200 words or less. [10 marks]

Answer: It's fake, goddidit.

Don't say I don't understand how this can work as though you or anyone else does. NOBODY understands how your position even theoretically could work, so unless you have some elite knowledge that the rest of the world doesn't have access to, then quit acting like science has proven your position. 

Don't tell me I'm too lazy to read a book. I've dedicated more time to understanding biology than you I guarantee you. You are one of the most arrogant people I have ever had the misfortune of communicating with. 

And I would probably ace that exam. I would love to arrange a time take a biology exam to see which one of us knows more. But I think we both know that there is no way you will so much as respond, robvalue.

[abaris]

And intelligent design is not unscientific.

In lights of what we know about the universe, earth and life, it is. But you deny that and seek refuge in some long debunked findings of obscure nature. Only then can you make ends meet. And, try as you might, you won't find anyone following you down that path, who isn't already on your side.

[Cyberman]

And so far, my academic career hasn't been hindered by my views.

It is impossible to hinder the nonexistent.

[Cyberman]

And intelligent design is not unscientific.

Then perhaps you could propose a method to test for and identify the designer.

[AAA]

And intelligent design is not unscientific.

In lights of what we know about the universe, earth and life, it is. But you deny that and seek refuge in some long debunked findings of obscure nature. Only then can you make ends meet. And, try as you might, you won't find anyone following you down that path, who isn't already on your side.

It is not unscientific. It is because we know about molecular biology that we can recognize patterns and information in the cell. Only one thing has ever been observed to cause a specified sequence of characters, and that cause is intelligence. Therefore, that is a perfectly rational explanation. You saying that it is unscientific doesn't make it unscientific. What makes it unscientific in your mind?

[AAA]

And intelligent design is not unscientific.

Then perhaps you could propose a method to test for and identify the designer.

Not in the lab like you want. But we can compare the two competing hypothesis by making predictions beforehand based on what would be expected between the two worldviews. Here are a few that have already happened.

Materialists predicted the cell to be exceedingly simple. It was not
They predicted most of the DNA to have no function. It did.
They predicted the cytoplasm to essentially be unorganized and random. It wasn't.
They predicted the universe to be eternal. It isn't.
They predicted the appendix go be functionless. It isn't.

Now I'm not going to say that people who believed in a designer predicted all the correct outcomes, but the fact is that all of these are not surprising in the designer world view. They were however surprising in the materialist worldview. If you want me to make predictions now, I will say that most of the observed variation that has been claimed to be the result of changing in the DNA sequence will actually be shown to be the result of changed gene expression. Also I think that introns will be shown to have function. I also expect the field of developmental neurobiology to reveal an intricate mechanism for leading to the proper orientation of the 100 Billion or so neurons found in the adult brain. It will be very difficult to explain through mutation and natural selection.

[Cyberman]

Then it is unscientific.

[AAA]

Then it is unscientific.

Ok, well then so is every speculation about the past