Link me any of this evidence. I Reject the argumental value of this point, pending some sort of respectable reference for your claim, on the grounds that up until what must be quite shortly before you made that claim, the general consensus among the physics community is that the universe came about in a big bang, with no evidential reason to assume that some sort of deity caused it to happen.
Semantics of Popper's qualifications for an idea to reach the status of a hypothesis aside, ID breaks the basic tenet that a hypothesis must provide a solution to a problem.
God can be anything, a rat in your basement, some oxygen molecules in the air, a random floating asteroid, the sun, a big guy with a beard chilling outside of the universe.
In other words "It could be anything" is just as viable of a hypothesis as "it could be god"
ID/creationism is not a theory because it cannot be tested in anyway, nothing can prove it, it can be indirectly classified as useless(IE Evolution removes the need for it, new research on the nature of time may remove any need to think that the universe was created, etc) but cannot be directly disproven.
It's not a hypothesis because it can't provide a solution to the problem it wishes to solve(Remember, saying "Well, SOMETHING makes it work this way" is the same thing as saying "dunno, could be anything")
I'm not a biologist. in fact, I'm in a special ed division of my high-school that doesn't have any classes pertaining to science other than algebra, which is a mathematical language for everything that can be tested, so i can't point out flaws in any detailed sense on your perceived notion of the nature of evolution. Not that i could anyways, since all you said was "evolution is stupid, ur stupid if u think its reel".
I refer you to my first point, because this is contrary to what was popular belief among the physics community when i checked last week.
So i ask you to give me a credible reference, being that you're the one here making the extraordinary claim without any elaboration.
On the contrary, i have yet to be met with any biological situation where evolution hasn't managed perform in a stellar fashion. every argument I've heard, from the bombardier beetle, to the monarch butterfly have been shot down with the elegance that only rigorous scientific analysis can achieve.
Furthermore, a common philosophical misconception among creationists, is that if you prove that one thing is wrong with a theory that covers, say two thing, then both must be wrong. in fact, only that which was dis-proven would be wrong, the other of the two still holds, and would be a necessary aspect of any theory which is to replace it.
In other words, you have to disprove all of evolution, not just point out an inconsistency in what we think is the case with one of millions of species we have to research, otherwise we have no reason to think it didn't just evolve in a different way than we originally thought. you have to show how evolution in general would be impossible, which won't come about by getting a ph.d in biology and pointing out a mistake, that should simply be updated.
Everything is science, and science is everything. Anything in the universe can be approached scientifically, from why trees are green, why you feel anger, hate, and love, to why we are here.
"What is the scientific method" would probably have yielded you the type of response you seek.
However, I've much more to post, and don't have the time to write you a book on the subject, nor do i feel I'm qualified to assert to you the arbitrary standards of the scientific method, nor do i feel it to be appropriate to be summarized into a few paragraphs to simply be left open to interpretation.
This isn't the case, at all. For most argumental intents and purposes, they are the same.
They both base their assertions on the idea that some sort of deity set all the trains in motion, which is exactly the point to be argued. Complaining about how two ideas are commonly paired due to large similarities is not a productive way to promote said idea.
Care to elaborate on these "facts" because from what i hear, if the results are the same, and they employ the same postulates, they are the same thing, and we don't have much of a debate if creationism is evolution, now do we?
Your other point is fallacious, it assumes that if A is wrong, then B is automatically right, regardless of what C, D, X, Y, and Z have to say about it.
In other words, ID is not validated to any extent if you manage find an inconsistencey with the current theory of evolution.
Nothing here is elaborated, its just a bunch of empty claims, you provide no line of reasoning on why anything you just said is true to any extent. I can erase the former sentence in this response, and replace it with nothing but "nuh uh", and we would be on equal ground in this debate.
In other words, please provide a credible reference for your claims, or provide a reason as to why they should hold any ground. for instance, what do you know about "the physics behind biology" that is somehow, such a large detriment to the theory of evolution, that it would override the enormous amount of observable evidence we've come across thus far.(and no, i'm not linking you references to a 10 year college degree's worth of observable evidence, when the burden of proof is on you, the one making the extraordinary claim.)
