I thought that the scientific method required someone to test their hypothesis rigorously, that other scientists need to be able to replicate the results, and that the results should be subject to peer review. According to you, scientists just make things up. The science-as-conspiracy-and-lies brigade is strong here, but scant on proof that scientists are just making things up. It's easy to claim this without actually researching the evidence for a hypothesis; for example, claiming that neanderthals are modern human with heavy brow ridges, while neglecting to look up what the actual morphological evidence is that they are different from us.



Maybe you should explain that to Ken Ham, who says:



Presupposition: the Bible is correct. Therefore, all observations must be consistent with this idea. He also claims that evolutionary scientists presuppose evolution to be correct, ignoring the body of evidence that is the reason for this theory gaining acceptance in the first place. Bias and science make bad bedfellows. A scientist should follow where the evidence leads, not presuppose an idea and then try to fit the facts to it. Good and workable hypotheses are based on evidence.

You have mentioned several things of which you appear to know very little, including Einstein's theory of relativity. I've just finished reading a book on quantum physics and I can tell you that he did not pull the idea out of his hat. Learn about what you're criticising before you dismiss it as nonsense.



Why don't you look it up yourself, or buy it, since it espouses what you believe in?



So because it presumably does not use the word "religion," it is therefore not a religious text? No possibility that the word was removed in order for people like you to make this claim? Maybe you would like to comment on this then, which Henry Morris said in 1999:



Really, this talk of ID-as-not-religious is not fooling any evolutionist here so I suggest you focus on other topics.

You've said several times, in various ways:



You could prove this so easily by presenting a legitimate experiment for creationism, yet you have not done so. I am not aware that anyone else has either, but the invitation here is open for you.



Your answer is to quote the Bible? This is your idea of a scientific test?



How is it twisting words to point out that saying "I'm incredulous" and "I'm incredulous for these reasons" are the same thing? If a scientist thought either of these things, the matter would go ininvestigated, and an opportunity to learn would have been lost.

I'm still not sure what you think you're showing with the helium balloon example. You said:



Is it not? Someone is saying they don't think gravity works because of something they observed. It's saying "I am incredulous for these reasons." As you pointed out, it would be easy to show this person how they are wrong. Scientists have also shown IDers how their models of irreducible complexity are wrong. What's more, longstanding theories based on a large body of evidence are not overturned because someone says they are incredulous. They get overturned when new evidence emerges that contradicts them, and the evidence has to be tested as rigorously as the theory itself. Otherwise, following your example, we'd have people saying they've proved gravity doesn't exist because of helium balloons -- people who may simply claim this because they have little or no scientific education.

No IDer has presented rigorously-tested new evidence to show that anything is irreducibly complex, which leads me back to asking where the evidence for a designer is. I can see it as a philosophy someone might hold, but I can't see how it fits anywhere with empirical science. Instead of more mudslinging at evolutionists, why not just focus on this and show how ID/creationism are scientific, by proposing a scientific test for them?