Here's why Creatards might be right

[The Valkyrie]

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.

You stay out of this! You know nothing about the human body, heart surgeon!

I will leave you good people to it.

[Whateverist]

Apparently you don't understand evolution or BB theory, and so you're reduced to the Argument from Incredulity ... A/K/A argument from ignorance.

I'll pay you more attention when you merit it; until then, do educate yourself about what it is you're arguing.

I'm embarrassed for you, displaying your lack of education like this.

evolution and BB theory both indicate a complex intelligent design based on organization and not chaos ... when it comes to the universe i agree with Einstein

That is precious.

[Ravenshire]

I have a feeling jenny's really a 12 year old. Her understanding of biology and evolution is about on par with that.

Actually, she's right on par with GC and I do believe he's over 12....







































Physically.

[jenny1972]

If you want evidence that Intelligent Design had nothing to do with it, you can read the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case for yourself. The top proponent of Intelligent Design, from the science world (Michael Behe) got his ass handed to him by a lawyer, when pressed for details on his general, sweeping statements about ID and Irreducible Complexity. (Edit to Add: He also was forced to admit, under oath, that his ideas were not science, and that he had actually preferred his woo-woo version so much that he had failed to keep up with several scientific papers which had proved the exact things he claimed could not happen under ID/IC, as he had proposed it. Basically he formed an emotionally-satisfying idea, ID/IC, and stuck to it even in the face of better data... this is the opposite of science.)

When you keep repeating what are basically Behe's arguments, with the added flavor of not actually understanding what biology actually says about how we develop, it tells me that you don't want to know the facts, but prefer your own woo-woo version of it.

If you actually want to know about Kitzmiller, you can read about it here, along with a lot of good biology info:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/ki...ision.html

i dont see how a judges ruling is proof that Intelligent Design didnt actually influence evolution in some way but it looks like a fair ruling

and both darwins theory of evolution without Intelligent Design and the other theory are stressed as being theories and NOT facts so thats true ...

" Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments. "

[Homeless Nutter]

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.

[SteelCurtain]

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

You are hopelessly, incalculably, overwhelmingly ignorant.

[jenny1972]

yes im suggesting that maybe human intelligence isnt the apex creative intelligence in the universe based on science that is highly unlikely

I'm curious why you're so convinced that the science is "highly unlikely." Have you perhaps studied both cosmology and biology at the college level? Determined after many years of research that those science guys have got it all wrong?

Or, are you simply talking out your ass for the sake of hearing your own voice. Because that's what it sounds like. Your views on the Big Bang and evolution are fundamentally and laughably wrong yet you come here spouting shit as if you actually know something about them.

Please, enlighten us on all the education you've received on these topics.

some science guys believe in evolution + Intelligent Design scientists have different theories they dont all agree

[robvalue]

That doesn't mean all opinions are equal.

[jenny1972]

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

[rexbeccarox]

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