Creationists

[LOki]

I think you are just plain confused, cheesecake. You just built a strawman. Look, it's a strawman. Does anyone see the strawman??? Strawman, strawman, strawman! Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Look!! There goes a strawman!!! Look ma, no strawman! Strawman got your tongue? Strawman's going to get you. Hollie to Loki: You're the Strawman of my dreams. Loki to Hollie: Your Straw-manhands are kind of Rugged.

What's the matter Pumpkin? Having difficulty with accepting that your fraud has been exposed? Is it just not fair that valid logic applied to verifiable evidence offers no support for your belief in magic; that it always supports evolution?

Face it Cupcake, the only hope you have to appear that you have refuted the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, is to make up your own nonsense to refute and hope nobody notices it's your own made-up nonsense.

Would that made up nonsense include all the Wiki quotes above which prove your strawman accusations to be TOTALLY BOGUS???

All those wiki-quotes actually support my position and demonstrate your assertions to be strawmen.

Funny how you don't respond to the posts where you get totally OWNED.

Seek professional help. Seriously.

 

[LOki]

Its not a Creationist book and you responded very predictably. A majority of the folks in the opposition here, like yourself, isn't interested in the truth. You have been brainwashed hook, line, and sinker and you are quite content to remain in such a state because the alternative would force a change. Either that, or you fall into the Christian persecution and discrimination group.

It's comically tragic that a Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding truth when the Christian creationist propaganda industry is drenched in lies, deceit and falsified claims.

...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.

At least when Loki plagiarizes, at least he switches the words around enough so a simple google search can't find him out.

Which is to say, "UltimateReality" made the accusation LOki plagiarized someone; but since evidence of such plagiarism is not necessary for UltimateReality to hold that accusation as valid, UltimateReality demands that the accusation is valid just because he believes it is so.

Just like his invisible superfriend.

 

[UltimateReality]

The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.

God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.

That is YOUR Christian belief, not science, and I am not stating that your beliefs are wrong.
Go get on your house roof at the highest point. Get your wife at the bottom on the ground. Then ask God to save you while you dive on your head on the ground.
Or listen to your wife who is screaming to you not to do it.
Your wife knows science.

You're the Devil...

Matthew 4:

1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”

7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”

 

[UltimateReality]

It's comically tragic that a Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding truth when the Christian creationist propaganda industry is drenched in lies, deceit and falsified claims.

...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.

At least when Loki plagiarizes, at least he switches the words around enough so a simple google search can't find him out.

Which is to say, "UltimateReality" made the accusation LOki plagiarized someone; but since evidence of such plagiarism is not necessary for UltimateReality to hold that accusation as valid, UltimateReality demands that the accusation is valid just because he believes it is so.

...

Sounds alot like Darwinism.

 

[LOki]

Prove what you are saying.

She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!

What she say's has never been shown to be possible, If it has there would be no debate.

There is no debate.

There's just us exposing that your superstitious assertions--of how your imaginary creator used magic to create everything just the way you believe--are just retarded. And that you are so retarded that you deny yourself any sense of integrity in intellectual honesty just so that you can say you've never been "proven" wrong.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie you are a joke but good for a laugh at your reasoning.

The joke is actually watching you and the other creationist self-refute all your earlier claims with the admission that creationism is merely a "front" for religion.

The other joke is seeing just how miserable and self-hating the creationism industry really is. Clearly you cannot reconcile the vicious circle you are in. You cower in fear before an angry desert deity because of an inability to live your life and take responsibility for your actions. That attitude colors your every post. You despise science and knowledge because it scares you. You despise humanity because progress and knowledge diminish your appelas to supernaturalism and magic. If you are bleak as to the outcome of humanity, then you are part of the problem, aren't you.

What you are doing is applying the query, "If there's no god, then isn't everything meaningless?" to all of existence, and that's a macro of nihilism I see no reason to embrace.

Man's baser instincts are clearly evolving. We are not as dispassionate as we once were. We are not as superstitious as we once were. We have gone from using simplistic tools to building space-based telescopes to see nearly to the moment of the the big bang.

These are acheivements of human spirit, and you reap the benefits even as you despise the efforts it took to gain those achievements.

Actually, just the opposite is happening. The return to materialism is resulting in a more brutal, violent, and depraved society. If you got out from behind your computer screen and actually left your group home, you would know this.

 

[LOki]

Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:

"Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur [in the time periods claimed], it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."

And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...

"Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."

"Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."

Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.

Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the bullshit to fact ratio rises when UR is compelled to use bold and oversized type,

Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.

I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.

Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!

 

[LOki]

Prove what you are saying.

She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!

Earlier in this thread I made the argument how mutation fixation can never happen the way evolutionist claim. I could not find it but I found an article discussing the same nine reasons why evolution through mutations can never happen. Now if you guys wish to go down this road read this article and let's get to it. In other words poop or get off the pot.



Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--​

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

A better title for this little piece of creationist misinformation is:

NINE NON-EXISTENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVENT MUTATION FIXATION

Seriously. Give that thing a thorough read. I think that nearly every single sentence expresses or serves a fundamental misunderstanding (more likely deliberate mischaracterization) of reality.

 

[LOki]

The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.

I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

HOLY SHIT! I AGREE WITH YOU!

While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science.

Well, this is complete bullshit.

The superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards--but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.

Creationists have no interest what-so-ever in demonstrating what they believe has any basis in objective reality. Science for you asshats is a test of your denial of reality; it is a test of your belief based upon nothing but your belief; it is a test of your faith.

Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept.

And they don't.

Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference.

Pathological projection.

Evolutionists do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest Creationist paradigm that Hovindists assign to them.

Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins.

Just alot of made-up nonsense.

The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.

Oh good!

This "God" thing you reference. I have no idea what you're talking about. You say the existence of this "God" thing of yours is easy prove.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and prove this "God" thing you reference.

 

[emilynghiem]

God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.

???

Hollie: for the effects of "forgiveness" therapy on healing the mind and body, both medical studies and psychology studies have shown this process works consisently. science and faith need not be hostile or adverse/opposites, but the same things taught in religion can be shown to work using scientific methods and study. Natural laws are part of creation also.

As for YWC God may not need science, but secular Gentiles who understand and appreciate the world through science may need this as a tool to resolve questions and conflicts. I believe God gave us the abilities we have in our minds and conscience to reason and compare consequences and cause/effect so we CAN reach an understanding by free will.
One day, we won't have to rely so much on blind faith, but can back it up with science and history, to show WHY certain choices in life and relationships are better than others.

 

[LOki]

I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.

That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.

You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.

Ah! Yes. The eternal evader make another fatuous victory claim for superstitious retards.

Since you've so smugly asserted that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

If, as you have vehemently demanded, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, from where came the intelligence of your Designer?

 

[LOki]

You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.

Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.

What a laughable joke.

Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?

The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."

Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.

 

[LOki]

God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.

God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.

You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

 

[LOki]

...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.

At least when Loki plagiarizes, at least he switches the words around enough so a simple google search can't find him out.

Which is to say, "UltimateReality" made the accusation LOki plagiarized someone; but since evidence of such plagiarism is not necessary for UltimateReality to hold that accusation as valid, UltimateReality demands that the accusation is valid just because he believes it is so.

...

Sounds alot like Darwinism.

Spoken like a true Hovindist.

 

[Hollie]

God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.

That is YOUR Christian belief, not science, and I am not stating that your beliefs are wrong.
Go get on your house roof at the highest point. Get your wife at the bottom on the ground. Then ask God to save you while you dive on your head on the ground.
Or listen to your wife who is screaming to you not to do it.
Your wife knows science.

You're the Devil...

Matthew 4:

1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”

7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”

8 Oi vey but these superstitious fools are gullible so that you will intentionally strike your forehead against a stone...repeatedly.

 

[Hollie]

...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.

There's that true Christian spirit of hate, derision, false claims, lies and....uplifting of the human condition.

 

[Hollie]

The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.

???

Hollie: for the effects of "forgiveness" therapy on healing the mind and body, both medical studies and psychology studies have shown this process works consisently. science and faith need not be hostile or adverse/opposites, but the same things taught in religion can be shown to work using scientific methods and study. Natural laws are part of creation also.

You make a number of vacuous claims but provide no support for any of them.

Science and faith actually are hostile to one-another when “faith” is substituted for, and used in place of, reason and knowledge. Unless one is "all-knowing", you cannot rule the supermagical out as a possible answer. However, by a simple exercise we can show that asserting a supermagical explanation plunges us into a world of nihilism. Consider:

In the religious worldview, what accounts for the existence of all is a supernatural, supermagical “Supreme Being” whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose mind we can never know, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond the gods’ ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

This, the religionist claims, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be an answer to anything?. Well, what has the religionist "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, for unknowable, self-contradictory reasons, created everything. This "answer" is not only superfluous and tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

Why bother with science at all then? Let's just accept the religious admonition, "God did it" and be done with all questions about existence.

As to your comment providing for “things taught in religion can be shown to work using scientific methods and study”, I would have to largely disagree with at least as it relates to the rational world. First, all is assumption in the religious, ie. Supernatural paradigm, (the religionist assumes god(s), the materialist assumes logic, rationality and reason). Given the abundance of gods throughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational, reasonable and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you select as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I for one have a hard time imagining you supporting the Greek, multi-god theories, which are obviously meant to "explain existence". The Greek gods have no more or less authority than that of the Judeo-Christian god(s).

Your assertion being “Natural laws are part of creation also”, is fine given the “because I say so”, argument but why should anyone accept such a baseless claim?

Many of the superstitions inherited by people today were culled from earlier civilizations, which is, of course, damning our own society with faint praise. As a culture, we are also profoundly superstitious. But we, for some reason I can only speculate as to why, call our preferred superstitions "religions" and assign to them a host of exclusions from rationality that it is not clear they deserve.

 

[Youwerecreated]

She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!

Earlier in this thread I made the argument how mutation fixation can never happen the way evolutionist claim. I could not find it but I found an article discussing the same nine reasons why evolution through mutations can never happen. Now if you guys wish to go down this road read this article and let's get to it. In other words poop or get off the pot.



Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--​

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

A better title for this little piece of creationist misinformation is:

NINE NON-EXISTENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVENT MUTATION FIXATION

Seriously. Give that thing a thorough read. I think that nearly every single sentence expresses or serves a fundamental misunderstanding (more likely deliberate mischaracterization) of reality.

You are talking my language now, please point out the misunderstandings and we will go from there.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.

You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.

Ah! Yes. The eternal evader make another fatuous victory claim for superstitious retards.

Since you've so smugly asserted that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

If, as you have vehemently demanded, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, from where came the intelligence of your Designer?

You are almost as funny as hollie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.

What a laughable joke.

Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?

The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."

Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.

What you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.