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

[abaris]

So as long as it is a natural explanation it gets to avoid the criteria that make something science?

No, it's peer reviewed that makes it science. My field's history and so I know scientific methodology. Which is why I don't put much stock in apologists but only in people who actually know their trade.

[AAA]

Just like we can't know what caused the universe. It goes both ways, and you know that.

Natural vs supernatural. You're still a caveman at heart. Since you can't explain certain things, it has to be god. Most of us are content with, we can't explain it - as of yet.

Do you even know how far we came within the last two centuries?

No it is not that God explains what we don't know. It is that the designer explains what we DO know. You should read a molecular biology textbook. It is amazing. Also I see no need to accept that we don't know a cause that can explain it, whenever a purposeful designer explains it well.

[AAA]

So as long as it is a natural explanation it gets to avoid the criteria that make something science?

No, it's peer reviewed that makes it science. My field's history and so I know scientific methodology. Which is why I don't put much stock in apologists but only in people who actually know their trade.

Ok, well intelligent design has had several papers peer reviewed.

[abaris]

Natural vs supernatural. You're still a caveman at heart. Since you can't explain certain things, it has to be god. Most of us are content with, we can't explain it - as of yet.

Do you even know how far we came within the last two centuries?

No it is not that God explains what we don't know. It is that the designer explains what we DO know.[size=xx-small] 

As I said. Caveman. Looking up at the sun and the moon, not being able to explain them - it has to be god. Easy solution to know why it gets hot or cold. That's what they did know, you know.

[abaris]

Ok, well intelligent design has had several papers peer reviewed.

Peer reviewed by the scientific community? Please share. I would be highly surprised if they didn't get only peer reviewed by fellow apologists. I hope, you are able to make that distinction.

[AAA]

No it is not that God explains what we don't know. It is that the designer explains what we DO know.[size=xx-small] 

As I said. Caveman. Looking up at the sun and the moon, not being able to explain them - it has to be god. Easy solution to know why it gets hot or cold. That's what they did know, you know.

That's so arrogant. Molecular biology isn't exactly the same as temperature change. Here's my new favorite picture of some biochemical pathways. 

[AAA]

Ok, well intelligent design has had several papers peer reviewed.

Peer reviewed by the scientific community? Please share. I would be highly surprised if they didn't get only peer reviewed by fellow apologists. I hope, you are able to make that distinction.

I'm sure you've heard about Richard Sternberg publishing an ID paper. He has two PhDs and doesn't believe it was designed. Does he count?

[abaris]

No, I won't, since you don't bother to answer the most simple questions. You fill your personal knowledge gaps with god. Fine by me and be my guest. What you fail to adress, just to give one example, is the level of peer reviews of apologist papers. How are they received by the scientific community?

You made a bold statement, so come on, lay your cards on the table.

[abaris]

I'm sure you've heard about Richard Sternberg publishing an ID paper. He has two PhDs and doesn't believe it was designed. Does he count?

You are aware about the contoversy surrounding Sternberg?

In 2005 he said he was not a proponent of intelligent design. He has more recently described his position as one that "can accept all that is empirically valid in evolutionary biology, while not axiomatically dismissing the position that structures as well as their “real” instantiations have an intelligent cause

So, wiggle, wiggle, dodge, dodge. Also, his theories are not accepted by the scientific community at large. As opposed to evolution.

[Cecelia]

.The appearance of design can't be the result of evolution because of the hundreds of proteins along with a large genetic code that is required to enter the evolutionary pathway. 

Also the universe does give evidence of design. Every single thing that led to us is unlikely. The cosmological constant, and other finely tuned laws  of physics and chemistry. The features of our planet and solar system that allow life to form. It is all exactly the way it needs to be.

Is English your first language?  I can't understand what you're trying to say.

But if the universe were actually just the way it needs to be, then life starting would not be so unlikely at all. In fact it would be incredibly likely.