Witness: intelligent design has identified God as designer

You with to sneer at "may have."

I with to thtate I lithped on that one.

No sneering. Just pointing out that the "facts" are inferences.

I went to the store today to buy groceries.
I may have gone to the store today to buy groceries.

If it is a fact, then it would be stated as a fact.

You seem to be the one doing the sneering.

VadeRetro,

You skipped the whole life/supernatural issue.

What do you think?

Darwinian evolution is not about this. He never once mentioned the scenario you describe. Your ignorance is not proof that you are right.

You do not seem to understand that this is what kids are being taught in school. Not graduate school, not college, but in middle school. That's why the ID folks are crying foul, and want equal time. You are so caught up in defending evolution that you don't see where the actual issue is.

Think of the arrogance if I, based on zero credit hours of Physics, decided string theory was wrong and the subatomic particles are really little elves. That's you announcing the last 150 years of science are wrong. Breathtaking, mind-numbing, laughable.

I was not announcing that the last 150 years of science are wrong. Actually, I was pointing out that a link that was posted as a "proof" is not. It is good information, but you require a higher standard of the ID people than that to which you hold yourself.

No. You just don't know what the heck you are talking about.

Nope. I never said I did.

You skipped the whole life/supernatural issue.

You have a rather bizarre idea of what is life. It sounds like vitalism, an old and generally useless idea. The stuff of life is carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, mostly. You can't restart Thomas Jefferson because degenerative changes occur within minutes of the failure of respiration and heartbeat. He's probably dust now.

As for the supernatural, there's just no evidence that nature isn't lawful in ways we can analyze. At least, that's been a good-working assumption thus far.

You do not seem to understand that this is what kids are being taught in school. Not graduate school, not college, but in middle school.

The Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s, a century after Darwin, showed that early-Earth conditions were condusive to the formation of aminos and other organics from simpler compounds. This is the beginnings of abiogenesis research. This is not evolution.

You are beating other people over the head with how little you know of what you are talking about. You haven't taken the trouble to educate yourself enough to even screech intelligently about the things at which you screech. Your opinions on the subject are worthless.

Don't just wail back how I'm attacking you again. I'm being nice here. There are nastier ways to put this. It is a waste of time to answer posts such as yours without pointing out that everything you're saying is just flat wrong and you need to educate yourself on what you're babbling about. Believe it or not, scientists train for years before taking up positions on the cutting edge of research. It isn't even so much you haven't done enough study to detect any flaws in their work and offer suggetions. You haven't done enough reading to make sense.

Let me once again deal with your railings at scientific "faith." One of science's most basic assumptions is that there are reasonable inferences available from hard data. This is not a faith, or, if it is, it is the most demonstrably useful faith there has ever been. You wish to compare science's use of inference to your own superstitious babbling. It isn't the same. The former works. The latter doesn't.

You have a rather bizarre idea of what is life. It sounds like vitalism, an old and generally useless idea. The stuff of life is carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, mostly. You can't restart Thomas Jefferson because degenerative changes occur within minutes of the failure of respiration and heartbeat. He's probably dust now.

As for the supernatural, there's just no evidence that nature isn't lawful in ways we can analyze. At least, that's been a good-working assumption thus far.

Nice shuck and jive, there.

I am surrounded by carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen. In fact, the nylon rope next to me is made up of those. It does not seem to be alive.

So you are saying you don't know. You just aren't honest enough to admit it.

Nice shuck and jive, there.

I am not trying to confuse you. I would like to dissuade you from trying to beat other people over the head with your own militant pig-ignorance and self-inflicted confusion.

I am surrounded by carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen. In fact, the nylon rope next to me is made up of those. It does not seem to be alive.

You are made of dirt-common elements, but only the ones that have a nice semi-stable chemistry that allows combining and recombining indefinitely without creating anything that's too low-energy for further reactions. A molecule becomes "alive" enough to evolve when it reproduces itself. If it isn't yet growing or hunting or thinking or prowling the bars to meet girls, it might evolve such features later. The rope is not made of dividing, growing cells.

So you are saying you don't know.

No, I am not saying that.

You just aren't honest enough to admit it.

You just aren't even logical enough to keep your story straight. You just said I'm saying I don't know. Never mind that is an out-and-out lie. You just said it in one sentence and contradicted it in another.

Nice "Twist and Shout." I'm not going to spend a lot of time denying I'm saying things I clearly never said. How old are you, son? Is it over 12? Try to raise the level a bit here.

Anyway, that's not the answer. I am absolutely positively saying there is no vital fluid or essence or whatever. It isn't just that we can't measure it. There isn't any. Or, if there is, we don't need it to explain anything.

Life is in the organization and the behavior. Disrupt the process, cut off the oxygen, withhold food, or scramble the molecules in a blender, the thing is dead.

There isn't much more to say except you need to grow up and learn the first couple of things about what you denounce. You are too flat-out pig-ignorant to be taken serously.

Good argument. You can't possibly lose with arguments like these! So good to know your extensive studies went to good use!

I would like to dissuade you from trying to beat other people over the head with your own militant pig-ignorance and self-inflicted confusion.

There isn't much more to say except you need to grow up and learn the first couple of things about what you denounce.

You are too flat-out pig-ignorant to be taken serously.

You are beating other people over the head with how little you know of what you are talking about.

You haven't taken the trouble to educate yourself enough to even screech intelligently about the things at which you screech.

Your opinions on the subject are worthless.

It is a waste of time to answer posts such as yours without pointing out that everything you're saying is just flat wrong and you need to educate yourself on what you're babbling about.

Believe it or not, scientists train for years before taking up positions on the cutting edge of research.

It isn't even so much you haven't done enough study to detect any flaws in their work and offer suggetions.

You haven't done enough reading to make sense.

You wish to compare science's use of inference to your own superstitious babbling.

What you are attempting to do, without trying to seem too unreasonable, is to be dragged through however much evidence as may exist screaming that you see nothing, nothing, nothing.

Your ignorance is not proof that you are right.

I could go on with your post, but you don't have to eat a whole omelet to know it's got a bad egg.

Think of the arrogance if I, based on zero credit hours of Physics, decided string theory was wrong and the subatomic particles are really little elves.

Breathtaking, mind-numbing, laughable.

No. You just don't know what the heck you are talking about.

You're either an idiot or a liar. I don't have to care which.

Dazzling. Do you speak English?

Do you stop reading as soon as you find one sentence you can spin?

When you're typing from the drunk tank in Singapore, it can take you a while to get home.

Bah!!

You can word it this way or that way, but the argument is still wrong-headed.

Again, you bludgeon with your failure to understand and remember, even down to what has happened on this thread for all to see.

Keep spouting patent falsehoods on these threads and I expose them.

Now, we still have the problem that nothing you're saying is true.

Apparently, you're going to keep arguing from the vastness of your personal ignorance forever, but let's do another one.

Of course, tomorrow and next week you still won't know any of that and will still be telling people that you don't.

You're slithering and darting all over the place.

Your ignorance is your problem, not that of science of science education.

Now you seem to be babbling about abiogenesis.

Don't be a shifty little weasel. Be a man.

This is the apparent opposite of what your incoherent garble seemed to be trying to say.

Your claim is false, to the extent you managed to make any sense.

God gave creationists minds so they could refuse to make inferences with them.

Are you really so ignorant you didn't understand that, or were you just hoping I am?

There simply is no data except data you like.

Your ignorance and your militant refusal to imagine the obvious is YOUR PROBLEM.

Most of the stuff you think needs explained can't be explained because it's wrong.

Your post is what happens when you get your science from creationist pamphlets and web sites.

Witness: intelligent design has identified God as designer

The term 'No shit, Sherlock!' springs to mind......

Supporters of intelligent design argue the concept is not religious because the designer is never identified.

Actually -[they] do not make this statement as God & the worship of and obedient submission to God (religion) are two different things...

Is the Declaration of Independence religious because it identifies unalienable rights from our Creator?

Faulty argument...

Apparently, you're going to keep arguing from the vastness of your personal ignorance forever, but let's do another one.

And I did.

As for your collection, you left out my tag line.