Why intelligent design "proofs" are pointless

[fr0d0]

So you can know nothing about your surroundings? The sum of all we know is evidence of its source, whatever that might be.

Did you read the several topics created by sswhateverlove and all the links she provided of high profile scientists not dismissing id?

[robvalue]

I don't know if you are pulling my leg at this point.

I saw several posts by that person, and they all looked very unscientific. If you could provide me with a good link that was given, I would appreciate it. I don't have enough sanity hit points to wade through all that stuff in those topics. I believe there was about 8 topics made, and they were painful to read.

[fr0d0]

The threads were littered with links from the op. Just skip all but her posts and it won't take you long to find. She seemed to have a serious take on the subject to me and presented the case very well.

[robvalue]

OK well never mind. I can't see what you are seeing. If anyone does feel like giving me a useful link from there, I'd be happy to look. Otherwise I'm not interested in dragging through those threads.

[Mr Greene]

To which the obvious reply would be the Steve List...
To anyone with a scientific qualification it's blatently obvious sswhateverlove has little or no idea of what they're talking about and amounts to little more than;

[Ryantology]

The intelligent design argument boils down to "intelligence and complexity can only have been designed by a maximally-complex intelligence that wasn't designed". It's a fundamentally idiotic argument.

[Mudhammam]

The intelligent design argument boils down to "intelligence and complexity can only have been designed by a maximally-complex intelligence that wasn't designed". It's a fundamentally idiotic argument.

No Ryan, a maximally-complex intelligence is actually very "simple." ;-)

[fr0d0]

Well that's what Aquinas said