[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

All I am saying if the possibility exists we are here by design not a random selection it should be examined. If you can make the argument about that instead of derping on about religion all the time we could possibily learn something.

Here's the problem: All of the leading ID proponents are deeply religious, and all within the same religion, and despite claims to the contrary they all contribute to and publish from the same religious foundations. You claim to hold different ideas, but you sound exactly like them. What's a body supposed to think?

My initial request was for proof of Darwinism's random selection evolution.

No, your initial request was for an explanation of the differing date ranges given for the "exodus" of humankind from Africa. After that was given you didn't "request" proof, as in honestly seeking an answer, you immediately started in with mockery and insults.

Stephen Meyer

One of the founders of the modern ID movement.

Douglas Axe

One of the directors of the Discovery Institute.

I'm not saying their credentials aren't valid, or even that I think they're wrong. At the start you accused Evolutionary scientists of being "more interested in defending their egos and funding than exploring other possibilities." and said "They cant afford to entertain other ideas." (Followed by a rolling-on-the-floor-laughing emoticon). What I am saying is that the ID proponents you use in your arguments have even more to defend, and more to lose. What they are defending is their Faith. They are just as heavily biased as any "Evolutionist" you chose to deride.

And while we're on that subject, you can insult the leading evolutionary scientists all you want, but do you really think the thousands of people working in that field are all interested only in their egos and funding?

[also please note baby jesus wasn't mentioned as having anything to do with the experiment either]

And neither did I, but you feel the need to keep harping on your pet strawman. What I said was that the ID movement was founded by Christians for Christians, and that statement still stands. It's easy enough to look up.

Put religion aside for just for a moment and consider their argument about the DNA before you pass judgement on it because of their personal beliefs, religion or website the information is found on. Im not asking you to follow any religion, I'm not saying you have to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. My argument is other possibilities should be examined.

I agree. The problem there is that other possibilities should be examined scientifically, and there is no way to do that with ID. It's not even a theory, it's a construct. They seem convinced that if they can prove Evolution to be just a little bit wrong then ID is the only remaining answer. They are not interested in examining other possibilities, only in proving that their Belief is Truth.

1. In my bible...

Wait. I thought you didn't care which god it was. Now you use the Jewish/Christian Bible as your starting point?

Scientists in Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear Physics seem to agree.

Where?

2. That desert sheep herders wrote the universe was created is the current scientific thinking by NASA.

Where? Who says that?

Instead of God they found quantum fluctuation as the source but as I said before both can be defined in much the same way. In that they both are non-physical, both act upon the physical, both created something from nothing, both predate the universe.

So now your belief in ID is based on God again?

As for number 3. Because of the first two rather than random selection from a fish I think we should at least look at the other possibility that we homo sapien were designed/created. Buts that me and my personal thoughts and ideas.

Okay. Since you've finally gone down that road, show one piece of evidence from anywhere that would indicate a God even exists.

I dont give a rats arse. I just want to know I want all avenues explored - scientifically. Maybe its a combination of both design evolution who the fark knows.

And yet you talk exactly like they do, arguing from the Biblical standpoint, mocking rather than exploring, but denying it at the same time.

As Anthony Flew once said "from Socrates's advice (as scripted in Plato's Republic) of "follow[ing] the argument wherever it leads."

And yet your starting point was that you already know the answers, or at least you already know what the answers aren't. You don't even admit Evolution as a possibility, which is hardly a part of honest argument.

Evolution may indeed turn out to be wrong. If if does, it will be the same scientists working in that field who discover it, and if it does happen they will work just as hard to find out what the reality is, because that's what scientists do (at least the good ones).

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is based on no science at all. It's not a theory, it's a belief. Of course to justify their claims they have to also claim that those who stand behind Evolution do the same. But ID isn't even a theory. It's an attempt to justify that very Bible and it's Six-Days Creation, and nothing more. I don't deny it, just the way they have to go about it. It may turn out to be true. So may the Koran. And so may the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But so far there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, for any of those.