Hang on, everybody! God DOES exist, and he's posting HERE under the name "Southern Man!"

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Do you realise how much this sounds like religion?

Science is the search for facts not truth. Religion is the search for truth.

__________________

Now, how is religion a search for "truth"?

And I mean "truth" not a pre-determined version of it.

I didn't insult you. I just asked you to quit believing in things that even my 4-year-old is wise enough to cast aside. Is it too much to ask you to grow up & have the mind of an adult? It's kind of sad how infantile your posts are, what with all the mythology & superstition to which you adhere.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

I had a brief look at your hackneyed link. Here are the highlights:

Under the "Testability" section:

So, in principle, if chance and necessity cannot explain a phenomenon, then if other criteria are met, that phenomenon could be considered designed. If this is not the case, then an illogical double standard has been established in science wherein design can never be affirmed, only denied. The section of this paper on design detection covered how one might propose that design is a warranted inference. There are testability experiments, often related to mutagenesis or morphogenesis, being proposed by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Scott Minnich, Michael Denton, David Snoke, Michael Behe, Ralph Seelke, John Sanford, and Douglas Axe. If results are favorable, these experiments could again lend validity to ID premises without providing an exact description of how an existing system was designed.

Here we see key words like "could," "one MIGHT propose," and "could again." This is not science; this is the classic "God in the gaps" argument. It goes something like this: "If a scientist cannot explain a certain phenomenom, it MIGHT be god. It COULD be god." But of course, there is no PROOF of this god.

Let's have a look at the section entitled "Falsification," in particular footnote #9:

Scholarly works have been invoked by scientists as reporting evidence against intelligent design. Kennneth R. Miller, Russell F. Doolittle, Jerry A. Coyne, Nick Matzke, and others have claimed that there is scientific evidence that rebuts ID. This means that intelligent design is scientific and that it is testable. Some articles are claimed by the authors themselves as showing that intelligent design is false on scientific grounds. The following are some articles cited as rebutting intelligent design:
Adami C (2006) “Evolution: Reducible Complexity,” Science, 312 (5770): 61-63, 7 April 2006.
Aharoni A, et al. (2004), “The ‘evolvability’ of promiscuous protein functions,” Nature Genetics 37, 1, January 2005, available online 28 November 2004.
Bridgham JT, et al. (2006) “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation,” Science 312, 97, 7 April 2006.
Dean AM and Golding GB (1997) “Protein engineering reveals ancient adaptive replacements in isocitrate dehydrogenase,” Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci. U.S.A 94, 3104-3109.
Lenski RE, et al. (2003) “The evolutionary origin of complex features,” Nature 423, 139, 8 May 2003.
O'Neill B (2003) “Digital Evolution,” PLoS Biology 2003 October; 1(1): e18.
Pallen MJ and Matzke NJ (2006) "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, September 5, 2006.
Zuckerkandl E (2006) “Intelligent design and biological complexity,” Gene. 5 Aug 2006.

Let's just talk about the portion in bold. Let me get this straight. The author of this incredible piece of propaganda cites scientific refutations of ID as proof that ID is somehow scientific, but never gets around to showing the science. Maybe I missed the science on this website, Southern Man. I did only briefly peruse it, but I saw enough "maybe," "might have," and "could be" here to make me close my browser. Scientists only use those words when crafting a hypothesis, but not when postulating answers. Rather, they'd say "we don't know yet." Not "it must be god." That's where ID falls down. God in the gaps is not science.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

It is what they are looking for, or what they claim to have found. even if it is a dog and pony show to keep the masses under control.

either way that comment sounded religious.

__________________

Down's syndrome is nothing to make fun about.

It appears that you are on a semantical search... :azn:

Ah yes, the never-ending search for the nebulous.

religion is not a search for truth. there is little searching for anything in religion as the religion already believes it has everything.

religion is an attempt to be the truth. religion says they have all the answers, or if they do not have them yet, have a way of getting them. religion is disinterested in looking further, as it has already found the answer (in its own mind)

science is opposite. it is a search for facts and does not claim to be the truth. it may claim to have no facts that contradict it, but still will not claim to be the truth. science knows from experience it does not know everything and it will look very silly when facts are presented that contradict a truth, which eventually will happen.

religion doesnt care if they look silly, they just pretend the facts didnt happen.