But there's not a shred of evidence that any sort of intelligent design does exist though, even you are probably aware of that.

"Magic", such as intelligent design, is not any part of the equation, it's actually quite the opposite. Magic is only the answer for those unwilling to search for the truth, it's just a place holder for actual knowledge.

Let me ask you:
Could intelligent design ever completely contradict the bible, and render it false?

The answer to that is the reason Intelligent Design is not science or even a search for new knowledge.

The inexplicable odds of everything are enough evidence that it is a possibility. "Magic" is not a cop out and it could be the truth intelligent design is not a dismissal of science, the science of, or study of should be just that and whatever the answer is should be.

Could ID contradict the bible and render it false? Yes. If Super Bob the Builder and his crew made the universe... then it would contradict the bible making it false.

Soo.. I'm confused on how to read your closing statement. Because it could be is why its not a possibility? At this point we have nothing absolutely nothing on how it all began on how life began only one truth according to science.. that it couldnt be ID... because... it can't be.

It can't be ID because there is absolutely no evidence, ZERO evidence, for it. There is also zero evidence for things like unicorns. Does that mean unicorns exist, because there is a possibility they exist on some random planet we don't know about? Do you have any idea how absurd you sound?

Making possibilities out of quite literally an impossibility is just as absurd... but it had to happen somehow.

We came from mud soup sounds rational... We were planted by aliens sounds rational... We were created by a deity sounds absurd.

You don't care to have an opinion other than that of a deity is absurd? That's fine, I only ask what is less absurd?

How is inexplicable odds evidence? Does the world just seem to not make enough sense to you, that magic seems like a very logical conclusion?

What does ID study now? How is it really a science? Do ID scientists uncover anything new that changes what they don't already "know"? Seriously?

You do know that ID doesn't say that superbob the builder made the universe, and ID is not now, and never will be at odds with the bible, right? ID is set in stone, it's not going anywhere, and that is not science, that is a belief held in place by religion, with any new evidence contrary to what is already written be dammed.

Since you seem to know science, you are aware that you can only prove something "is", you can't prove something "isn't". Sure, you can deduce what is true and false, by proving what is true, but the burden of proof is on the party that proposes a hypothesis.

Someone can't just say "I say unicorns are real, and you need to prove they are not, or you need to accept that they either are true, or atleast could possibly be true, until you, not me, can prove they aren't."
That's got to seem completely asinine even to you, especially when the subject is about unicorns and not religion, right?
So what's the difference? Does the word "religon" itself deserve automatic respect, because it's...well "religion"?

BTW, Do you believe that Cromagnon man existed? What about H.Erectus?

Either of those explanations are equally absurd, actually. This is the hilarious thing -- ID is so full of **** you don't even know what ID is, instead you have about fifty different explanations for what is meant by "ID" based on varying interpretations of Genesis or some such garbage. Gtfo

Yea watch maker, smotch maker... Again you fail to answer a simple question and resort to putting people down. It's easy to attack others when you won't reveal yourself.

I don't mind but it is still curious for a person that has no opinion or care you have an opinion about those that do... almost like you.. care?

If you don't care why should you ask me to gtfo? You don't need to read it if you have no opinion on the subject and you don't need to post if you don't care... yet you do.

I really don't know why you are so rude to people that think different than you... but again its ok.

It's not evidence that the universe began with a creator... maybe I was unclear (sorry) it should be enough evidence that a chance exists it could have. I am not saying "this is the way it happened" as you point out it is impossible to prove, but so is a bang.

I'm not saying study ID, what I am saying is that science needs to be free from bias. If science finds mud soup then it finds mud soup. If science finds a more advanced race that's what it finds... if it finds a creator that's what it finds. Why eliminate a possibility? How will you find the answer if close possibilities?

Yea science is great, I like it a lot that's why it saddens me that results skewed because of what people want to believe... Look at these words you will know who it is... "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets inmotion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." It's possible...

Just as ID or creation the Big Bang will never be proven both will likely require death... nor will evolution because of the law of biogenesis. Science has been re.tarded because of the "belief" something can not be not because it was proven not to be.

Cromagnon, **** Etectus existed sure... who, what, when etc. we may disagree on though. I would rather not do the whole this point that point thing... its silly and been hashed over by men and women smarter than me and probably you too.

All I really am trying to say is science needs free of beliefs... beliefs of this or that.

Time for bed Power, Ty for discussing and sorry if I am hard to follow at times.

Dobby... you don't need to be so upset, friend me and I'll save you a few times as I usually play initiator or support.. maybe then we can be friends like Lennie and George... you can like me and look past my mental disability.

What evidence of any kind are you talking about? Ideas are not evidence. Lack of something is not evidence. Again, what evidence of any kind are you talking about? (do you know what the word means, or do you simply use the term to validate what you are talking about?)

Science doesn't have a bias, it treats all evidence the same. It uses the scientific method to go from hypothesis to law. Science isn't closed to finding a god, but where do you start to look/gather evidence for the hypothesis besides people's imagination, really? The gods people make up, are purposely designed to never be proven and are supposedly so unfathomable it's futile to even look for one. Again, the burden of proof is on the persons proposing an idea/hypothesis, not anyone else. Science hasn't found the christian god, because he was designed by men to not be found, by a keen bit of circular logic. If science stumbles upon a god, you don't really think "scientists" would choose to ignore it because of their old stubborn beliefs that get in the way. That's the religious mind you are thinking about that does that, not a logical one.

Evolution is a fact. Ignorant people like to think Evolution is some complete from start to finish belief structure for life on earth, it's not. Evolution comprises of small groups of animals or plants that show evolution between a few subspecies, usually by natural selection, but sometimes mutation as well. We know whales evolved from an animal that crawled on the land or mud because of it's now vestigal shoulder. We know H. Erectus eventually became Sapien. That is evolution in play.

So what do you think Adam was?

It is free of unsupported beliefs. Science does not hate god like you might think, but it does do things like prove parts of the bible are not true, and that's where westerners tend to get the idea that a god even exists. When you base your beliefs on something that is already been proven incorrect, it's your problem that you choose to continue to hold that belief, not "science's".

you want to include deities in science because they may have a chance

the thing is science can't include them because science can't study or test deities

deities don't follow the laws of physics science can't work with something like that