He follows the Jehovah Witness technique of deception and misinformation and then running away and acting as if nothing happened.
Next comes the incredibly arrogant, and totally unsupported, claim that he knows some sort of ultimate truth. After all, if you're going to tell lies, you might as well make them big lies.
@newjaninev2 Why do you think he has to respond? Do you want him to?
What "big lies" is he telling? He is an Air Force veteran who wants to tell us about what he believes on a website called similarworlds. Is this an issue?
@badlands Why does it matter if he's a veteran? By that standard, Jimmy Carter, who served in the Navy, was a better president than Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, neither of whom served.
@LeopoldBloom I like to understand the man behind the post. I think newjaninev2 sees the OP as an idea, not a person. This is why it was relevant to call him an Air Force veteran. People are desperate to prove ideas wrong on this site. He is just a guy who wants to share his belief in God. You can't test intelligent design in a lab, not in the way newjaninev2 would want you to. Intelligence is limitless, and it is complex. An intelligent design would be beyond our understanding. Time alone is telling us we will never understand it. If you are not present for an event, do you know what happens during it? It's all speculation, and most scientists are only interested in what they can show they have tested and proven.
And who determimed that intelligent design is not valid? A judge? That is who she claims determined it. Is that science? A court of law and a judge whose reach this is beyond?
@badlands The invalidity of 'intelligent design' is determined by a complete and utter lack of evidence.
Claims made despite that complete and utter lack of evidence are baseless, and the failure to respond when challenged speaks to the underlying duplicity.
@newjaninev2 Can intelligent design be tested by scientists? How do you propose they do that? Where do they start?
"Claims made despite that complete and utter lack of evidence are baseless, and the failure to respond when challenged speaks to the underlying duplicity."
@badlands The complete and utter lack of evidence is compounded by: 1. there's no compelling necessity to postulate 'intelligent design'... convenient fictions are pointless. 2. the postulation explains nothing... it doesn't even explain itself... but tries to merely explain everything away.
Can intelligent design be tested by scientists? How do you propose they do that? Where do they start?
That is a very stupid question. ID, has no evidence to test , agreed. But why would anyone bother ? Evolution is very well understood, it is testable and can be observed under certain conditions. ID does not have a single premise which should even be entertained. Why would anyone consider it, when we already have a working model, that works and has testable evidence to support it ? ID exist for the sole purpose of promoting a religious myth. It has no basis in reality.
@DocSavage Which one is "stupid"? I asked three questions.
You ask: "But why would anyone bother"?
They would bother because they want to pursue the truth. Science is about understanding our world, which includes understanding how it came to be, and how we came to be. We can't know, but we can have ideas.
You said intelligent design cannot be tested, and this I agree with. We are not able to test it in a conventional scientific manner. Scientists cannot test it in a lab. Can you say that an idea not tested has been refuted? It is untestable and that is it. Belief in intelligent design and a designer needs faith and an open mind; a scientist concerned only with testing and proving hypothesis is out of their depth. A creator would also not allow it. Why would he allow us to test the truth when it is our faith, not knowledge, that matters? With knowledge, we don't need faith.
@newjaninev2 These are your opinions. Are they facts? No. All that is fact is that you were born and will die.
Billions of people across the globe do not share your view. I am reading your opinion, and you can't test your opinion in a lab. What's it worth? Nothing. Do you even know what faith is? What is it to you? Do you have faith in anything?
@DocSavage He claims to be such a Christian but his posts are angry and argumentative. He never posts about being a good person or how to be good, but just how wrong everyone is who doesn't ascribe to his particular view of Christianity. There is nothing good or holy about the man.
@badlands You can’t test for intelligent design. You look at life itself, and then you investigate what forces and elements make it work. You work with what is there, not with something that isn’t.
@badlands confidence or trust on what basis? if there is no basis, then it's pretence. If there is a basis then its demonstrable and faith isn't needed.
It's all speculation, and most scientists are only interested in what they can show they have tested and proven
“What that can show they have tested, and proven “ what better evidence is there ? And if not trained scientists, who would you elect to judge the validity of intelligent design? The scientific method is the best thing we have. What do you have to match it ?
@DocSavage I said: "science can neither confirm nor deny intelligent design." Intelligent design cannot be tested, and if it cannot be tested, it means it has not been disproven. How do you refute a hypothesis that is not possible to test?
"who would you elect to judge the validity of intelligent design?"
Why do we need a scientist to tell us whether it is true or not? They have no authority to say this; they have no evidence. This is a matter of belief and the OP is entitled to believe what he wants, for the reasons he considers valid.
@badlands It is for the person that makes the assertion to provide the test, not the reverse. It is up for the believers in ID provide the evidence to support their view. As Christopher Hitchens said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
I think the more accurate thing to say is that intelligent design has not yet been proven.
