So, if I say that it is "plausible" that your comment is a result of intelligence........it has zero evidence or no credibility?
Or if I say that it is more plausible that the post/comment was "created" by an Intelligent Being.....It has ZERO evidence?
Plausible is not a rating in EBM. You rated evolution a C.
You may want to prove the existence of God.
Sir, you just made use of a faith-based word BELIEF! Thats not very scientific.
Definition of belief:
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when
based on examination of evidenceThe fact is it is Evolution that has Zero evidence!
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important
distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad
areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution
looks at changes within species over time—changes
that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups
above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently
from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to
reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that
microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory
(as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in
the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes
among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other
mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis
and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations
over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves
inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct
observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include
astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary
biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking
whether they accord with physical evidence and
whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the
idea of descent with modification, one may also speak
of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation
that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all
practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record
and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have
evolved through time. Although no one observed those
transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous
and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence.
Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance,
so they verify their existence by watching for telltale
tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers.
The absence of direct observation does not make
physicists’ conclusions less certain.
What observations can make it false?
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If
we could document the spontaneous generation of just
one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at
least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have
originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared
and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular
species), the purely evolutionary explanation
would be cast in in doubt. But no one has yet produced
such evidence.
This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall under the definition of science,
Sorry but evolution is defined as knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
On the other hand is intelligent design scientific and testable? Can intelligence be tested and verified? In reality, intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified.
Intelligence yes but not an intelligent designer.
My turn to ask questions about ID?
When and how did a designing intelligence intervene in
life’s history?
By creating the first DNA?
The first cell?
The first human? Was every species designed, or just a
few early ones?
And one more thing: Is your comment/post a result of or evidence for Evolution or Intelligent Design?
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Your statements agreeing with evolution:
If by Evolution you are referring to small-scale changes/variations in species. This has been observed and accepted...indeed this is a FACT.
You dont go around disregarding evidence that does not fit your diagnosis, you look for another diagnosis.....same goes for evolution!