Intelligent Design New Evidence

[RogueWarrior]

The only difference between us is that you refuse to understand - or you don't understand - the evidences that I've put in front of you (along with supporting documents from credible sources).
My arguments are not merely based on suppositions and assumptions.


Yours and William's assertions are merely your personal opinions based from assumptions and suppositions.

All of tosca's posts are attempts to discredit evolution in the mistaken belief that if she can discredit evolution she gets, aside from a Nobel prize, to claim victory for ID.
What a total and colossal waste of time.

I really thought she was going to provide NEW evidence FOR her position. All we got was crickets.

Summary of Tosca's post

• Her first Post #14 (and 'strongest' argument was a fine tuned universe. Debunked. It presupposes that humans (or life as we know it) are meant to be here. There is no proof of that. Furthermore she goes into multiple, massive arguments from ignorance for the fine tuned argument. Also known as a Gish Gallop. There is no proof that there is only one combination of these constants that would produce life. Are there other universes we can compare with? Therefore it is hubris to suggest that this universe is the only one possible or the only one possible where life could evolve. This not evidence but an argument from ignorance as first pointed out by Cephus. This thread should have died here with her 'best' evidence.
  
• Tosca then demands evidence Post #16 for evolution which is irrelevant to this thread. Lets all just assume, for the purposes of this thread, that evolution (and also abiogenesis) are wrong and let her try to prove her assertions about ID without be distracted by her attempts to shift the burden of proof.
  
• She then claims personal attacks Post #24. It is not a personal attack to claim a person using logical fallacies when they actually are doing so. It is indeed a sad day when someone cries 'foul' about getting called out about using one of the most basic logical fallacies. Until Tosca can demonstrate the universe we inhabit is the only one possible, her fine tuned argument floats like the Titanic:sinking:
  
• She goes back to asking for proof of a competing hypothesis (post #26), which is still irrelevant.
  
• After an explanation of why her argument fails, she uses a personal attack (post# 37) to deflect criticism. She failed. She must prove that there is only one possible universe capable of supporting life for her Gish Gallop of an argument to win. Each her facts is an argument from ignorance because there is no way to investigate the veracity of the claims.
  
• Post #43 Argument from ignorance through and through. We have only investigated less than 20 'heavenly bodies' in an extremely limited way and she can infer from that rather limited sample size that life is not possible anywhere else in the universe? Classic ignorance fallacy.
  
• and on and on ignorance followed by shifting the burden and back again
  
• until post #56. Proof is the Book of Genesis!! How does one validate the Book of Genesis? Has it been done scientifically?
  Additionally, no one denies that ID is possible but so far in this thread, there is no evidence untainted by logical fallacy to support ID.
  All scientists speculate not just the atheist ones. What a silly thing to claim speculation is irresponsible.
  Finally how can ID even be considered 'plausible' when every evidence proffered thus far is tainted (aka invalidated) by logical fallacy?
  
• then comes post #65. The Syfy watch maker argument.:doh. Since it has not been proven that fine tuning actually exists (because it has not been proven that all possible universes are devoid of life), 'fine tuning' can't be used to argue ID. Argument from ignorance (again!).
  
• at this point it get loopy for everyone. People on both sides start to use arguments from ignorance. But this is tosca's evidence for ID thread and the burden is on her to provide evidence for ID. Again I have to say the fine tuning argument globally is not valid unless it can be proven that our universe is the only possible one to support life as we know it. And specifically each of the claims from post#14 would have to be proven as well. There are no tests possible with current technology to verification those claims.
  
• skipping ahead to post #126. More argument from ignorance with a dash of argument from authority. Scientists are arguing about it so it must be true.
• Finally something interesting. Multiverse. YAY! But wait... the fine tuning assertion not been proven. Until we can examine other universes or prove this is the only one, fine tuning is cannot be proven.
  
• post #130. Prove that all life in the universes is concentrated on one planet. Prove that it is this planet. How do you know nothing is 'out there'? Have you looked everywhere? More argument from ignorance
  
• post #138. more anme calling.
• post #146 back to the Syfy watch maker. The 'dome' on Pluto would have to be contrasted to naturally occurring domes. If is not natural then it is constructed but by who or what?
  
• I could go on Tosca but I need sleep. If you want to use your 'best' argument aka the fine tuning argument you need to prove that only that specific combination of constants in your post#14 is capable of supporting life.
  
  
  
  

 

[William Rea]

The only difference between us is that you refuse to understand - or you don't understand - the evidences that I've put in front of you (along with supporting documents from credible sources).
My arguments are not merely based on suppositions and assumptions.


Yours and William's assertions are merely your personal opinions based from assumptions and suppositions.

Your argument is based on one huge presupposition and a failed attempt to discredit Science and you are clueless about how big a fail you actually are which demonstrates not only ignorance of the subject but, ignorance of your failings.

For me this thread is over and you lost, now we can see what evidence there is for Evolution, the theory that you were more than happy to trash in order to try to achieve the aims of your politicised religion.

 

[tosca1]

Militant evolutionists would have you believe that there is no evidence for Design, and that there are no "qualified" scientists who believes in ID, or Creationism. That opinion is so laughable, and it only proves how steeped in ignorance militant evolutionists are.

If that is ignorance.....why on earth would any clear-thinking individual buy what they peddle?

Who believes what they sell?

 

[tosca1]

Atheist Scientist Becomes Christian After Researching Evidence
- Hugh Ross, PhD


Astronomer and best-selling author Hugh Ross travels the globe speaking on the compatibility of advancing scientific discoveries with the timeless truths of Christianity. His organization, Reasons to Believe (RTB), is dedicated to demonstrating, via a variety of resources and events, that science and biblical faith are allies, not enemies.


Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross



In this video, he explains in details the connection with the Biblical passage.

 

[tosca1]

All of tosca's posts are attempts to discredit evolution in the mistaken belief that if she can discredit evolution she gets, aside from a Nobel prize, to claim victory for ID.
What a total and colossal waste of time.

I really thought she was going to provide NEW evidence FOR her position. All we got was crickets.

Summary of Tosca's post

• Her first Post #14 (and 'strongest' argument was a fine tuned universe. Debunked.

• 
  
  
  What do you mean, debunked? Sez who? Just because you say so, doesn't mean it is so.
  
  
  

  It presupposes that humans (or life as we know it) are meant to be here.

  
  And you guys I suppose don't presuppose that we are simply here by accident. :roll:
  
  What I managed to prove was that humans are here because the conditions were just right for making it possible to sustain life. There's been a lengthy explanation, and other reasons given why therefore, Design is more plausible than your theory of INFINITE ACCIDENTS!
  
  And we all know the real reason why ID isn't being officially considered by science. It has nothing to do with actual facts! It's because of their outdated guidelines!
  
  
  
  Oh boy. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest! You're simply rehashing old arguments that's been done already....and you're simply being stubborn about it.

 

[RogueWarrior]

What do you mean, debunked? Sez who? Just because you say so, doesn't mean it is so.




And you guys I suppose don't presuppose that we are simply here by accident. :roll:

What I managed to prove was that humans are here because the conditions were just right for making it possible to sustain life. There's been a lengthy explanation, and other reasons given why therefore, Design is more plausible than your theory of INFINITE ACCIDENTS!

And we all know the real reason why ID isn't being officially considered by science. It has nothing to do with actual facts! It's because of their outdated guidelines!



Oh boy. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest! You're simply rehashing old arguments that's been done already....and you're simply being stubborn about it.

• first you start by shifting the burden to a competing argument instead of addressing your duties of proving your claim. What does any competing argument have to with the evidence needed to prove yours?
  
• D BUNKED! Your argument is that your list of 'scientific facts' are actually true. But are they?
  
  Take your very first 'scientific fact':
  
  1.strong nuclear force constant
  if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
  if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
  
  Please show evidence of some experiment where we have have varied the strong nuclear force to ascertain whether increasing or decreasing its value precludes life chemistry.
  We all know you can't.
  No such experiment has been done. Science is making predictions (check), testing (oops) and falsifiability (oops). Your evidence fails.
  
  Take your eighth 'scientific fact':
  
  8.expansion rate of the universe
  if larger: no galaxies would form
  if smaller: universe would collapse, even before
  
  Please show a scientific experiment or even just observations of expansion rates of various universes. We only have data about one universe, it would the utmost stupidity for any scientist to make predictions based on no observable data.
  
  I could attack each and every one of your 'scientific facts' in the same way. Can the predictions be tested? No. Therefore until such time, that they can be tested and are also falsifiable, you or anybody else has no reason to say that they are 'scientific facts'
  
  
  It is a massive, heaping pile of argument from ignorance to conclude that your 'scientific facts' are true without even testing to see if they are true. You are claiming predictions as scientific facts.
  
  In conclusion:
  
  D BUNKED
  
  
  
• Evolution is not infinite accidents. Your verbiage betrays you.
  
• :lamo
  
  outdated guidelines?????
  
  Science will consider any theory as long it makes predictions that are testable and falsifiable. Most if not all your 'evidence' from post #14 is not testable and/or not falsifiable. If ID proponents want to taken seriously by scientists (atheist and theist alike), they have to create a hypothesis that makes predictions, then test those predictions and have the predictions be falsifiable.
  That is how science works.
  
  Trying to change science's guidelines to fit a desired outcome is something that has been tried before. It was called the Dark Ages.
  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell us how the guidelines should be changed.

 

[Tim the plumber]

The only reason I can see that people would believe science and religion are incompatible is if they believe in a literal reading of a few particular holy books. They only conflict when you decide things like "human beings appeared in their present form ~6000 years ago" or "the Earth was formed in six days as we currently know them."

You might be able to decide that some of the Bible is drivel and the rest is OK but you are then presented with the problem that it is self contradictory and full of vile evil acts done on the say so of God.

Ethics and Christianity certainly seem to be at odds.

 

[Capster78]

The basic structure of the universe as an example. Everything is "just right" to make it possible for life on earth to flourish.


As the eminent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson notes, "There are many . . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules" (p. 251)--in short, life as we know it would be impossible

From Did We Win A Cosmic Lottery by Robin Collins


Since Carl Sagan's death in 1996, new discoveries in physics and cosmology bring into questions Sagan's assumption about the universe. Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering.

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

2.weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

3.gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

4.electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

5.ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

6.ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

7.ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above

8.expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

9.entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

10.mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

11.velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

12.age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

13.initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

14.average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

15.density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

16.average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

17.fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

18.decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

19.12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

20.ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

21.decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

22.ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes

23.initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

24.polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

25.supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

26.white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry



The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

The age old argument of asking people to debunk your argument, instead of having to prove your own argument yourself. There are entire books which argue on each of those points which clearly show that intelligent design does nothing to explain why they are they way they are. All your doing here is throwing out tons of information and asking people to debunk it as it relates to creationism. None of us are qualified to speak on it at the depth at which you want an explanation. And even if that person were here to speak to that level, it would be at a level that you yourself don't understand because you are not an expert in any of those fields. Just because you post information on a site that no one is qualified to explain to you, does not make the point you are making a valid one. Intelligent Design has has already been completely debunked and is close to a science as astrology is to science. Here is a video that explains in logical terms why Intelligent Design is simply religion posing as science.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Atheist Scientist Becomes Christian After Researching Evidence
- Hugh Ross, PhD


Astronomer and best-selling author Hugh Ross travels the globe speaking on the compatibility of advancing scientific discoveries with the timeless truths of Christianity. His organization, Reasons to Believe (RTB), is dedicated to demonstrating, via a variety of resources and events, that science and biblical faith are allies, not enemies.


Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross



In this video, he explains in details the connection with the Biblical passage.

Argument from authority.
This scientist is a christian so christianity must be correct.

He didn't meet christians until he was 27?? I call BS.

Just because something has a beginning, it doesn't mean there is a beginner aka a creator. Again this a is a prediction being touted as a fact with any evidence.

He became a theist at 16. How can you claim he was an atheist scientist before he left high school? BS

After 6 minutes my eyes glazed over.

 

[tosca1]

None of us are qualified to speak on it at the depth at which you want an explanation.

I agree with you on that! I don't make claims without any supporting evidences from credible sources. The last thing I want is an explanation from them without anything to support whatever claims they make.

And even if that person were here to speak to that level, it would be at a level that you yourself don't understand because you are not an expert in any of those fields.

Exactly. And pretty much, it'll just be ramblings from someone who pretends he is as knowledgeable as any scientist in every fields.

Just because you post information on a site that no one is qualified to explain to you, does not make the point you are making a valid one.

Wrong! If they can't find anything on-line that can refute it, it is most likely a valid one!

Intelligent Design has has already been completely debunked and is close to a science as astrology is to science. Here is a video that explains in logical terms why Intelligent Design is simply religion posing as science.

We've gone through all that - you should back-track and read previous posts.

 

[Capster78]

I agree with you on that! I don't make claims without any supporting evidences from credible sources. The last thing I want is an explanation from them without anything to support whatever claims they make.

You don't make any claims at all. The only claim that I see you making is that because we don't understand it, some designer or god did it. You give no evidence of a designer or a god. Watch the video I posted and you will see you are doing exactly the same thing renowned scientists did when they were at the limit of their knowledge. Instead of admitting they were not smart enough to answer the questions, they inserted God in its place. Then a few years or decades later, another scientists came along and filled in the God void with information, but then hit their limit and filled that void with god. That is all your doing in your post. You don't provide evidence for anything other then science has not discovered the answers yet. Only someone who is ignorant of scientific history, would believe that science won't continue to fill those voids.

Exactly. And pretty much, it'll just be ramblings from someone who pretends he is as knowledgeable as any scientist in every fields.

Then posting this here and expecting an explanation from people who are not scientists proves what?

Wrong! If they can't find anything on-line that can refute it, it is most likely a valid one!

Refute what? Again, how can you refute a non argument. You made absolutely no argument for creation other then that it exists because scientists don't know the answer to everything yet.

We've gone through all that - you should back-track and read previous posts.

I don't need to read anything you post. I get my information strait from the scientists that do the work. If you have theories that are relevant and could refute top scientists who all say creationism is bunk, then I expect to see you writing a book and gaining enough attention that you will become someone I will listen to. Until then, I will get my information from the experts and not from some amature from the internet that no one knows about.

 

[Deuce]

Militant evolutionists would have you believe that there is no evidence for Design, and that there are no "qualified" scientists who believes in ID, or Creationism. That opinion is so laughable, and it only proves how steeped in ignorance militant evolutionists are.

If that is ignorance.....why on earth would any clear-thinking individual buy what they peddle?

Who believes what they sell?

Believe in =/= have evidence for

 

[ludin]

The Big Bang is certainly fantastic (definition 4), but it's not "unscientific." It is well-supported by evidence. Not that you'd actually bother looking at such evidence.

Not if you have read the latest discovery. the higgs field theory proves that the big bang was certainly not possible, and that that universe should have collapsed on itself.

which is interesting since some of the most prominent mathmaticians and scientists predicted this outcome years before.

 

[Deuce]

Not if you have read the latest discovery. the higgs field theory proves that the big bang was certainly not possible, and that that universe should have collapsed on itself.

which is interesting since some of the most prominent mathmaticians and scientists predicted this outcome years before.

It does not prove that, no.

 

[ludin]

It does not prove that, no.

umm yes it does.

Say What? Higgs Boson Theorist Claims Universe Shouldn't Exist - NBC News

please update yourself, because well the big bang theory just got tossed out on it's ear according to the new higgs theory.
in fact the new higgs theory supports what Pemrose, and Hawking predicted years before that the big bang theory simple is not possible scientifically.

i find it funny that when science defeats a popular theory that all of a sudden denial sets in.
I am sorry but well the fact is the big bang did not create the universe as stated.

 

[Deuce]

umm yes it does.

Say What? Higgs Boson Theorist Claims Universe Shouldn't Exist - NBC News

please update yourself, because well the big bang theory just got tossed out on it's ear according to the new higgs theory.
in fact the new higgs theory supports what Pemrose, and Hawking predicted years before that the big bang theory simple is not possible scientifically.

i find it funny that when science defeats a popular theory that all of a sudden denial sets in.
I am sorry but well the fact is the big bang did not create the universe as stated.

I find it funny when people take news headlines about high-end physics research as gospel.

 

[ludin]

I find it funny when people take news headlines about high-end physics research as gospel.

IE i can't refute what they said so i will just attack the source.
you realize that isn't an argument.

you totally ignored what was in the article.

 

[Deuce]

IE i can't refute what they said so i will just attack the source.
you realize that isn't an argument.

you totally ignored what was in the article.

Out of experience.

Never take a journalists writing at face value regarding major scientific research. It's not an attack, it's reality: journalists aren't scientists. They don't understand all of what they are writing about. They will very regularly misuse a term like "prove," or "linked with." They constantly make the correlation/causation mistake. Worse, it is literally their job to make things more interesting or more scary than they really are, because that sells better. So they'll get a statement like "this could disprove the Big Bang" but leave out various caveats like "if this mathematical model turns out to be accurate which we don't really have a way to judge right now"

Here's a tip: go to hate actual source. Read the actual paper, see what it says.

Your best bet is to go with the actual source.

 

[ludin]

Out of experience.

Never take a journalists writing at face value regarding major scientific research. It's not an attack, it's reality: journalists aren't scientists. They don't understand all of what they are writing about. They will very regularly misuse a term like "prove," or "linked with." They constantly make the correlation/causation mistake. Worse, it is literally their job to make things more interesting or more scary than they really are, because that sells better. So they'll get a statement like "this could disprove the Big Bang" but leave out various caveats like "if this mathematical model turns out to be accurate which we don't really have a way to judge right now"

Here's a tip: go to hate actual source. Read the actual paper, see what it says.

Your best bet is to go with the actual source.

this still doesn't address what is in the article and the source is the scientists that work on the higgs theory.
so you can either address the article or you can't. in this case you can't address the article or what the scientists working on the higgs theory says.
your deflection of the topic and lack of acknowledgement of the article means that you can't form an argument to begin with.

if you would have read the article then you would have seen that the scientists that created the higgs theory said that the big bang would have ripped the higgs field apart.
this would have caused the big bang to collapse in on itself just milli-seconds after it exploded.

This same theory was already put out there by Steven Hawking and in his own words (previously) said that the big bang was not scientifically possible.
His friend Roger Pemrose said the same thing. that the big ban theory was virtually and scientifically impossible.

we now have evidence based on the higgs theory that this was correct.

the big bang did not create the universe.

 

[RogueWarrior]

this still doesn't address what is in the article and the source is the scientists that work on the higgs theory.
so you can either address the article or you can't. in this case you can't address the article or what the scientists working on the higgs theory says.
your deflection of the topic and lack of acknowledgement of the article means that you can't form an argument to begin with.

if you would have read the article then you would have seen that the scientists that created the higgs theory said that the big bang would have ripped the higgs field apart.
this would have caused the big bang to collapse in on itself just milli-seconds after it exploded.

This same theory was already put out there by Steven Hawking and in his own words (previously) said that the big bang was not scientifically possible.
His friend Roger Pemrose said the same thing. that the big ban theory was virtually and scientifically impossible.

we now have evidence based on the higgs theory that this was correct.

the big bang did not create the universe.

what does all this mumbo jumbo have to do with providing evidence for ID?

 

[American]

Let's say Intelligent Design was true. What are people scared of?

 

[Somerville]

Let's say Intelligent Design was true. What are people scared of?

IF ID is true it would invalidate the scientific method which has created our modern world - that's kinda scary.

 

[Somerville]

I don't think that ludin read much more than the headline of the article he linked to

Of course, there must be something missing from these calculations.

"We are here talking about it," Hogan told LiveScience. "That means we have to extend our theories to explain why this didn't happen."

...

So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said.

Oh look - a scientist comes up with a new idea which provides a result that doesn't match with reality. Does the scientist say, "Goddidit!" or do they say, "We need to do more research"?

 

[American]

IF ID is true it would invalidate the scientific method which has created our modern world - that's kinda scary.

What??? You know how much science has come to be wrong? You know they thought the world was flat once?

 

[Fenton]

IF ID is true it would invalidate the scientific method which has created our modern world - that's kinda scary.

No it doesn't.

You probably don't understand the " Scientific Method " I gather. How could you and make a post like that ??

No sweat, Liberals are terminally Scientifically ignorant while at the same time they claim Conservatives are ignorant.

Has the " Scientific Method " proven that a God doesn't exist ??