https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour Has he ever suggested that there is scientific evidence for intelligent design? I can tell you the answer: No! I know this because none exists. To argue that evolution is not fully understood is not the same as promoting a crackpot claim, such as the claim that intelligent design is a theory or that the proposition has any supporting evidence.
You dodged the question simply because you play word games. You don't "appear" to be condescending and arrogant. You really ARE. Arrogance and condescension are anti-intellectual and unscientific. Yet they are the two primary games played by atheists and materialists. Anyone who knows of the profound complexity of reality would quite properly have, what you call, "personal incredulity." Carl Sagan expressed it just with respect to spectral analysis of distant stars. I wrote to him critiquing several of his books. His reply, instead of addressing my points, was simply to ask me to buy his newest book. I had never bought a single one, but rather checked them out at the library. Since you don't respond by adding information or anything interesting, you will be added to my Ignore List. I wish you had something to say, but alas you do not. ~ciao
You misunderstand, and badly. Darwinism is UNSUPPORTABLE. It has been studied extensively for 150 years, and now stands because of peer pressure and word play. Intelligent design is not "a theory." It is where evidence inexorably leads one, provided they do not close their mind as atheists and materialists always do.
Completely and utterly backwards and unscientific to boot! But to be fair let's give you a chance to PROVE your absurd allegations. Where are your peer reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals that establish that "Darwinism is UNSUPPORTABLE"? If it has been "studied extensively for 150 years" why has no one, except fundamentalist creationists, ever come up with a scientific paper that exposes that "Darwinism is UNSUPPORTABLE"? And then there is the illegitimate child of "creation science" known as "intelligent design". A conservative Federal judge appointed by President Bush ruled that ID was nothing but rehashed "creation science". Onus is entirely on you to provide credible sources to support your bogus allegations about ID.
That is not what the scientist cited says. Not at all. Never mind the 99% of biologists. And chemical engineers are way out of their league on these topics. It is not a theory because there is no evidence for it. If there was, it would at least be a formal hypothesis. But it is just a crackpot claim.
Isn't it interesting that to this day, there isn't a chemist alive who can offer a reasonable argument to the contrary?
The "You can't get something from nothing therefore GODDIDIT claim" is a popular mindless and fallacious strawman argument from creationist acolytes and mere assertion addicts like ChemEngineer.
"If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox, Oxford University A Matter of Gravity
There is zero evidence for the existence of your god. Your position is that something that you cannot prove exists was responsible for "creating" the universe out of "nothing whatsoever" and this must be accepted using nothing but faith alone. That is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary evidence to support it. But there is no evidence whatsoever. None at all to be found anywhere. Your "creator" is a superstitution that you have every right to believe in but your superstitious beliefs have no place in science under any circumstances. Science is based upon facts that can be tested and reproduced by others. Superstition is based upon Stone Age fears and ignorance. I will stick with science since it is fact based.
Mainly because Chemistry isn't really a science, it's pretty much cookery. Now Physics and Mathematics, they're the god killers and the internet will do the rest.
Why would Chemists offer any argument that "GODDIDIT"? Instead they have studied the chemical interactions to gain an understanding of the various properties and attributes of specific chemicals and then how those properties interact with other chemicals. Like all good scientists they addressed the questions of Why and How and then used the scientific methodology to hypothesis and test and publish papers that were peer reviewed. So what was the "point" that you were trying to make?
How very amusing. To get that done, the physicists are going to have to explain, among other things, the "probabilistic" behavior of subatomic particles, and they're lightyears away from that. As for math, what makes you think that's a silver God-killing bullet I have no idea, but I expect your explanation will be similarly risible.
