[txroadkill]

...as they are objecting to religious dogma, myth and crank wackiness, being presented as scientific theories...

One thing you can always count on is a leftist defending his cause by insulting the belief of his opposition.

Defend Darwinism, if you can, with proof, not insults. To me, and others like me, it takes a nut to believe that all of this happened by chance and we reach that conclusion by applying scientific facts into what you would call a belief.

...than it is for them to do some actual research and tests and produce some papers or fossil predictions, DNA marker predictions, ANYTHING, that points to Intelligent Design being a workable theory.

You assume that those of us who believe in God do so blindly and ignore science so that our beliefs wont be challenged. You assume wrong.

Darwinism is a theory at best with no scientific proof that I have ever seen other than pointing at the slow water buffalo that gets caught by a lion and calling it proof (I see it as part of God's perfect design in that the lion needed to eat, so he made slow water baffalos). You brought up the Earth's location in the universe, it is scientific fact that if this planet and all the other planets were not in the exact location that they are in then life would not be possible on Earth, the odds of that happening by chance are too incredible to even comprehend and then rationally say it is fact.

You demand proof of God, then look around, proof of God is everywhere. Show me proof that God does not exist, other than theory.

[Oztrich Boy]

One thing you can always count on is a leftist defending his cause by insulting the belief of his opposition.

Just as you can count on "moral conservatives" to defend their cause by making ad hominem attacks on anyone not in total agreement with them.

Check out the current mega-thread on daddy-daughter purity balls. Anyone admitting to feeling uncomfortable with the idea of men publically proclaiming the virginity of their preteen daughter on a dancedate is accused of supporting debauchery.

[49th]

"it takes a nut to believe that all of this happened by chance"

Darwinism doesn't come to any conclusions, nor make any predictions about the origin of life, other than that it almost certainly only happened once. It is not a Darwinist position to conclude that it happened entirely by chance. It is an atheist position, yes, but while all Atheists are Darwinists, not all Darwinists are Atheists.

"Darwinism is a theory at best with no scientific proof"

The following publications would disagree:

American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics

(this is a small fraction of the literature)[thanks coyoteman]

"it is scientific fact that if this planet and all the other planets were not in the exact location that they are in then life would not be possible on Earth,"

This is not actually a 'scientific fact'. While it is probable that a small derivation in the orbit of the earth itself -either closer to, or farther away from the sun- would make life on earth as we know it nearly impossible, that doesn't rule out the possibility of other kinds of life arising on earth. Also, while it has been theorized that the gravitational presence of Jupiter has helped to draw away potentially dangerous comets and asteroids, the positions of the other planets have little to no influence on life on earth (except when Mercury goes retrograde, which causes people to misplace things).

"the odds of that happening by chance are too incredible to even comprehend and then rationally say it is fact."

Current estimates place the number of galaxies in the Universe at 125 billion and the number of stars at seventy-sextillion (70 000 000 000 000 000 000 000). In other words: if the odds against the exact configuration of our solar system happening were five-hundred trillion to one it could still be expected to occur one hundred and forty million times.