Intelligent Design is not creationism

I have time to construct a sentence as I am flat now.

You are a troll and a fake.

I gave you quotes of real scientists who are not religious. Your refuse to acknowledge anything that does not fit your tiny brain's world view. Why have you not refuted the work of those scientists?

You are not interested in the truth or learning.

You are a fabricating troll.

Acknowledge and refute the science if you have a shred of self worth.

 

TraderNik:

More lies. Let me set the record straight. Origin of life researchers don't have a theory yet. They are building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. ID doesn't have a theory yet. It's researchers are likewise building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. But that's not good enough for the ID critics. The “evidence” they need for ID must be shocking, undeniable, and revolutionary.

I’m not interested in providing some type of shock for the ID critics. I’m interested in whether an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to weaken or strengthen ID suspicions and whether it can help expand our understanding of biotic reality.

 

cheers mate... i only come here when i need to listen to some random anti-darwin rants and squeals and talk about appearances and subtle clues and out of context quotes etc... that's all there is in this thread from the ID/Creationist camp, and no reason that should change...

 

no reason to respond to the quotes of hoyle, greenstreet and davies if they conflict with your belief system.


Astronomer Paul Davies has said that the evidence for design is overwhelming.

Astronomer George Greenstein says: AS we survey the evidence, the througt insistently arises that some supernatural ageny or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that sudenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. Was it God who stepped in and so providently create the cosmos for our benefit.

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says that it looks s if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.

And after reviewing these quotes in his book Susskind says "Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one fo the grete scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent desing is undeniable.

 

BULLSHIT

 

Bullshit ? well at least that is a response.

Lightyears ahead of trollnik who has chosen to ignore their existence because they compete with his worldview.

 

no reason to respond to the quotes of hoyle, greenstreet and davies where they conflict with the scientific method.

 

when you can show their conclusions are not based on good science or the scientific method you will let us know.

Because the founder of string theory Dr. Susskind said these men know good science. I gave you quotes in this thread on that point.

 

maybe not a good response but the only one I had at the time

 

Here then , let me show....

















see that?
No science / no scientific method

Susskind is not the founder of string theory. That's like saying Einstein is the founder of science
Good scientists don't conclude on speculation.
That you "gave quotes" is in itself meaningless.