How can you falsify or unfalsify it if your not first alowed to ask and research the question? Common sense.
It must not be too common, since you do not seem to get it.
How do you research something using science that cannot be demonstrated by objective physical evidence? That should be common sense.
No one is preventing you from asking questions, but you make positive claims and chant about evidence supporting those claims.
So assume theres nothing there, then effort dont need to be done to do tests to figure it out. Ya, that makes a whole lot of sense! Not.
If a person claims there are invisible pink unicorns running around everywhere, we should assume they exist? That does not make sense.
Lol, i cant help but laugh. Its a mantra, theres no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence. The reality is, there is evidence, lots of it. Very strong evidence. Not proof, but yes, evidence.
You can laugh all you wish, it will not make evidence that you do not have suddenly materialize into existence.
All the things that have been offered as evidence so far have been shown not to be evidence for the claims that intelligent design proponents claim. That is funny I suppose.
The ones in power that set the rules for what science is or does. Thats the mainstream.
There is no conspiracy of scientists controlling what science does. That is funny too.
One of my reasons for believong in God IS intelligent design, which YOU reject. Therefore, yes, you reject my reasons for why i believe in God, yes you do. Yet you wanna say im attacking your reasons for belief in God, when in fact you never gave a reason. So how can i attack it?
So you did not become Christian until the intelligent design movement began.
That may be part of the problem. The intelligent design movement told me that they were not saying the designer is God. I did not know that they were lying about that.
You did not respond to my questions about why my particular story is germane to the discussion. Given that evidence and the arrogant nature of your posts, my conclusion is that I was on the correct track about where you were taking this.
Thats false. Im not attacking you at all and you should know that. I asked you a simple question which was why do you believe in God? Why i believe, one of my reasons is intelligent design, which you reject. So, tell me your reasons so i may see if there better reasons then my reasons?
I accept that you believe in God. For the sake of the discussion, I do not need to know the details. Your belief in God is not at issue with me. It is your claims that are at issue, including your having evidence to support your claims. You cannot even verify some of the evidence you are claiming as evidence. How can unsupported supposition about alleged phenomena be used to support another claim while it remains unverified?
Oh but it does because we both believe in God, but, apparently you have perhaps better reasons for belief then my reasons which you reject. So, do tell?
Why do you keep having to return to the nature of my belief? I thought you said this was not an attack on my beliefs. My beliefs are not important if you truly think that intelligent design is science.
I wont dismiss you, but depending on your reasons for belief, i may or may not dismiss those reasons. I would evaluate your reasons just as you evaluate my reasons, which is intelligent design is one of my reasons.
I do not know that you are fit to judge my reasons for believing. I am not claiming there is evidence that exists for them that I can share with the group and verify objectively my reasons for holding those beliefs. The discussion will not fall apart based on my personal beliefs. It does not change the questions. It does not change the evidence or lack of evidence. There is only one reason to demand it and that is to divert the discussion and call those beliefs into question.
Im not talking about you, im talking about your reasons for belief in God.
I am asking why they are important to to the discussion. They are not. I am purposefully trying to leave my beliefs out of these discussions and base them solely on the evidence, since intelligent design proponents keep saying it is not about God specifically and that they do have evidence. My beliefs have no impact on the conclusions of science and they have no probative value in discussions about intelligent design where claims are made based on alleged evidence.
Intelligent design infers actual design. While naturalism infers merely an illusion of design.
Intelligent design claims the apparent design we see in nature is actual design. The inference is on belief alone and not on evidence. None of the evidence that has been offered has held up. Even people like Behe had to admit that.
How is the inference that design is an illusion any more scientific then infering actual design?
Science does not say the design is an illusion, just that it is the result of natural processes. Science cannot give a reason that has no physical manifestation. Scientists might as well attribute everything that has been discovered to Mighty Mouse if they follow your lead.
