Pseudoscience. Intelligent design is not testable, observable or falsifiable.

Sums up what every Darwinist says.

Your link seems to prey on those who are not science literate.

You can get sued for what you just said.

EvolutionNews is a credible source and quite famous in the world of science and faith. Or would you rather know them by their other channel:DiscoverInstitute

Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, it does not take into account of how things can arise slowly, part by part, and then change over time

Neither does Natural Selection solves the mysteries of what Evolution aims to be.

When ID has tried to get into schools the courts have even noted that ID and IR are not recognized as sciences.

You mean the criticism of ID?

This are the people who forced Intelligent Design as a replacement to evolution and aimed to use it as a well-masked creationism. Not a surprising result if you ask me.

sigh

It takes only common sense to know that God cannot be proven nor disprove. Gaps in the scientific world does not prove a divine being but neither does explanations.

I had lots of examples of your wording not being true to what was claimed by the authors or theories

And so whats your point?

All throughout the argument, youve been criticizing every word of my sources and claims that it will change meaning. So I asked you whats the new definition, but up until now, you still haven't given me anything that would change something in the poll.

Its a simple question with simple answer. What's taking you so long?

You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread

1. So where is the evidence that God does not exist?

2. I never mentioned the Guadalupe in our thread. But if you are gonna claim it as fake, you will need to provide me some evidence.

I respects everyone's claim and I am open to change my position based on new information. There's nothing new to be found here, though

Natural selection is a process in evolution that can be observed and tested.

So is Intelligent Design.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

-EvolutionNews

Only one of the statements is supported by evidence the other is just a assertion with no proof.

Wait, are you still referring to the survey about the population of religious scientists or not?

You are asking questions to things I have already outlined of why I disagree. This is just a continuation of you showing me you haven't mulled anything I said over.

I can say the same thing

I completely understand why you disagree. But your reasons does not carry enough weight to neutralize mine. And the same can be applied to my arguments

I already told you thrice: Until we found a way to test our ideals, no progress will be achieved.

Its up to you if you wish to prove me wrong, but be prepared to get exhausted

Evolution is testable, creationism is not.

I agree. But that is not our argument.

Our argument is Intelligent Design vs Natural Selection. It's an old debate that not once has ever made progress. And I doubt that it could ever be.

No matter on which angle you look at, this debate will never amount to anything more than a play of words.

I noted the change in meaning the words conveyed but you insist the end result is the same.

So....what does the new word mean and how does it make any difference in the end result?

We are just going in circles,

Precisely.

I already told you; "It is impossible to make progress in an argument that cannot be tested"

I do not mind if you are willing to explore the debate. But bear in mind that it will be an exhausting adventure

Evolutionary speaking there is no mystery why humans did so well.

Oh, but there is mystery as to why other animals were unable to match us.

For instance you keep bringing things like humans lack of speed as one of your criteria but ignore that biologists and anthropologists note we were persistance hunters

Because being persistance hunters only lasted until we invented agriculture. T is to say; the birth of civilization and modern man.

The Homo Erectus has met the extintion that is was meant to face, but the Homo Sapiens, didnt because it learned how to settle, make shelter and farm. Something that is unique in the animal kingdom.

That is your stance is based on sources of evolution you like and coincidences. I contest that they are not coincedences at all but explained through evolution.

Practically the same argument.

Both of us believe that Evolution was the result of need to adapt. Only difference is that I believe that there is a divine being planning the future and you dont.

Simple argument, isnt it? But then, since our stance cannot be tested, we will not be able to make any progress

One implies creation and predetermined intent the other implies neither but that something is a result of something that was beneficial.

So...both cases involves the same results.

Its merely the background of belief that differs it. In the end, both speaks the same words of changing for the better good

Of course the wording on a poll would matter more than a blog post, polls should be held to a higher scrutiny

So...in what way is that any different?

Based on how many threads you created, and how you lost all of them...the conclusion goes without saying.

Im bored. Why not do something funny?

I already have

Actually, you're all alone in your denials.

And up until now you still cannot disprove it

Just stop posting already. You know that the curtains have already fall.

Your take on evolution is still slightly off. Evolution does not favor the most adaptable it favors the most fit for the situation,

And we still havent made any progress.

No matter how you look at it, the body of a human being should have been doomed to extinction.

>no claws nor fangs

>no strength

>no speed

>low birth rate

And yet, here we are now; trying to conquer the vastness of space.

If evolution happens as a way to simply adapt to the ever changing world, then I see no reason aswhy nature would allow us to be the only type of animal that can create technology and question philosophies.

Unless it is intended by an intelligent being.

You assume these things were created for a purpose but in evolutionary terms they were left because they worked for our benefit.

That's practically synonymous.

created for a purpose = worked for our benefit

In the blog post the author said on average believers are happier in general

In terms of happiness, yes. Everyone is on equal grounds. But when it comes to rising up after a fall, it is the religious ones who has the most advantage.

The explanation is simple: A believer has someone/something to turn to

"Asking if you believe in God and then asking do you believe God or a higher power will net you different answers in population"

uhhh...what? Both words yield the same meaning. Correct me if im wrong, though.

I can say the same thing.

I can say the same thing.

Funny, you are the only one who claims it as fake. And yet, you are also the only with the most laughable excuses.

You have been reduced from an arrogant newbie to a troll that struggles to live. You know that it is only a matter of time until you left for good. Whats keeping you?