Liked it.

Nuff said.

“No. I do not accept any hypothesis until they have been tested and verified by experiment. It’s called the scientific method.”

What about the God hypothesis?
Jim51

Was looking forward to an entertaining read ..

“True Ryan, but we could all hope that the creationists who try to perpetrate this sort of celluloid excrement suddenly find their pants exploding!”

Urk! Putting the words “excrement” & “pants exploding” togthere like that creates a very unpleasant mental picture …

Even if “Expelled” was expelled from the backside of a bull with dysentery!

‘Stein’ is german for well one of those big beer glasses ..

‘Ben’ (& I kid you not) is Japanese for excrement!

Put them together & you get “excrement drink”. Which seems to fit!

Sounds like a load of bollocks!

Oh, really?

>>>”I believe several posters have already mentioned this, but what if evolution was intelligently designed? Then what?”

What if it was? Evolution is still valid. But then the burden of proof is on those who say evolution was “designed”. I am still not hearing any definition here of what this “designer” is, what evidence there is for it, or what it did, how it did it, when it did it, how to test it or how to falsify it.

>>>”Here’s another argument against evolution (not that I believe it): according to plate tectonics, evolution is impossible.”

If you don’t believe it, then why even bring it up? Answer: to cast a shadow of doubt. You seem to be here to play word games.

Theories make predictions. If these predictions are successful and support the theory, we keep it until more evidence or a better theory comes along. So for now, we keep evolution. There is no other theory that comes close to competing with it. Intelligent Design is simply Creationism with big “sciencey” sounding words. Creationism is unscientific, makes no testable predictions and has no validity. If anyone out there has a “theory” of Intelligent Design, please tell me what it is.

@OilIsMastery
“If intelligence isn’t the goal of evolution, then why is man intelligent?”
Because all life prefers survival. In our case, we would not have survived had we not developed the capacity to become a dominant species through wits. In our case, intelligence was an advantage. We have an extremely narrow comfort range but are smart enough to make clothes and move beyond narrow climes. As a social networking species we learned to make civilization for distribution of goods/needs, etc. Without this capacity, ours may have been a dead end branch like so many others. Further, we have branches in our line that apparently were NOT intelligent enough to survive. You’re not alive due to an accident are you? Neither is anybody else, but because of a wonderful series of events. In your case, your parents (else you wouldn’t be here). In our species case, our ancestors (else we wouldn’t be here).

“I don’t know how someone can say they believe in God and then simultaneously reject Intelligent Design.”
C’mon, now. There are hundreds of theistic religions. (Is it safe to say you ascribe to just one of them?) All my xtian friends reject creationism. There are religions in which the member’s ancestors created God. Early Jews (as described in the bible) believed they had a separate God who didn’t answer to gentiles, thereby refuting ID for man as a species.

“Do you have any evidence that contradicts the existence of God?”
That’s just childish coming from someone who claims they understand the scientific method. It’s as valid as me asking you to show evidence that I don’t have an invisible leprechaun in my garage.

So, you think you have a foot growing out of your forehead?
(hint: it’s dishonest to put words in people’s mouths that aren’t even close to what they said, such as “He thinks God is unintelligent too?”).

“according to plate tectonics, evolution is impossible.”
You’re conflating “Biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific” with “Plate tectonics”, and then not supporing it by the quote you offer (which appears to argue against creationism). Plate tectonics would be viable without inhabitance by advanced life forms.

Since you have stated Theism is a scientific theory and can be falsified, care to describe the theory and from which hypothesis it came?

“but what if evolution was intelligently designed? Then what?”
Maybe life would be much less diverse.
But what if it wasn’t? Then what?
Would your life somehow be different?
Would the world look any different?
Of all the creation myths that have been espoused, why the Jewish one?

“Biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory. Specifically, according to the theory of evolution, you can’t have a host of closely-related, poor dispersing taxa suddenly appearing on opposite sides of an ocean — when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans. So according to the referenced paper above, unless plate tectonic theorists want to rely on divine intervention, a slew of creation stories or a myriad of impossible trans-oceanic crossings of terrestrial taxa, their paleomaps are wrong. Panthalassa could not have existed between all of the hundred plus referenced taxa, which is to say, it didn’t exist.” — Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

So too for theism.