It's theology for dummies like me. I see things sometimes and can see that it points to the existence of a designer God.
Through confirmation bias. You have given us nothing else but logic fails.
Then intelligent people come along and say, "That's ridiculous, that is a logical fallacy or two and you need to be able to explain it or it is irrational and you should stop believing."
I don't think you need to be particularly extra intelligent to be able to spot things like confirmation bias etc.
You are very capable of seeing flaws in claims and claimed evidence. You do it all the time. It's why you are not a scientologist.
Ask your self why you are not a scientologist. And think further then "because I'm already a christian".
Take a step back, limit it to the claims of scientology alone, regardless of your christian beliefs and really think about why you don't consider it convincing.
When you properly answer that, you'll know why I don't believe in your religion. It's the same reason.
I was referring to irreducible complexity.
There is no such thing. That ridiculous concept has been shown to be nothing but quack a long long time ago.
Every example the quacks that invented it gave, has been shown to be bs.
At the very heart of IC, btw, also lies the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
"
I don't know / understand how this could be simpler, therefor it can't be."
Sometimes things in biology will not work unless fully functional in a human body.
Especially when one ignores the evolutionary history of the human body.
Again: the IC quacks have never been able to give an actual example of such.
And there's still also the pesky issue of the entire idea
literally being rooted in a blatant argument from ignorance.
And you have your personal opinion based on your belief in science
Science is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of verifiable evidence.
and answers that it may have come up with, even if those answers are not testable
Answers that aren't testable, aren't science.
Testability is requirement number 1 for any scientific proposition.
IOW it is educated guesses based on what might be able to happen through natural processes. But hey it's called science so who cares about little details like that when it is more fun to attack people who believe in a creator?
Your strawman is noted. See above. You started with a false premise. Science is testable. If it's not testable, it's not science.
We don't want to look silly to our peers. Science, science all the way, even if it might be wrong.
Anything can be wrong. The question is: how would you ever find out if it's wrong, if it's not testable?
This is why testable science is superior to mere faith in unfalsifiable propositions.
Through testability, science has literally built-in tools for self-correction.
This is why science can make, and does make, progress. Meanwhile as a science-denying religious believer, you just sit there dwelling in perpetual willful ignorance.
Science can be profoundly wrong when wanting to look into the past however
And because it is testable, you actually have ways and mechanisms to find out if that is the case.
Anything, including religion, can be "profoundly wrong". But without some proper form of testability, how would you find out if it is?
Also, I would also posit that no theory in science will turn out to be "profoundly" wrong.
Not completely accurate or incomplete - sure.
But "profoundly" wrong? Very very unlikely.
, and because of the nature of science (looking at the physical universe) and the nature of God (a Spirit being) all science can do is find physical answers, and skeptics who have something against faith in God, will gladly have faith in that science that is just educated guesses.
You don't need faith when you have evidence.
Faith is what you need to believe things when you have no evidence or can't have evidence.
I don't do faith.