Quote:
Ok, well you left out my next line:

Quote:
The only question ID really asks is whether or not our existence and the world around us equate to the clock.
I mention this because you make it sound as if I'm an ID proponent ("The flaw in YOUR logic"), which I'm not.


Sorry about not quoting your whole statement, but I was going after that specific notion about the clock, regardless of whether it's one you support. "The flaw in your logic" meant the flaw in the logic that you brought to the table in this disussion. I'm arguing against ID here (well, against the teaching of it in science classes, more precisely) and if you are not an ID proponent, you're certainly "playing one on TV" for the purposes of our discussion. I'm happy to debate this with you, with the understanding that you're not squarely in the ID camp.

Quote:
Your argument about the knowledge that man makes clocks is a good answer to this latter statement, though I don't really think definitive. I'd like to hear more disccusion.

It's definitive that man makes clocks. We have evidence in the form of clockmakers, clock factories, etc. It's not definitive that anything made a specific clock, but in the presence of millions of clocks we know were made by man (we saw it happen) it's unlikely that any clock we see just materialized.

It is, however, not definitive, nor supported by any science, that anything created man.

QED.

Quote:
Not all scientific observations are testable.


Not all scientific *theories* are testable. Observations need not be tested all, because they're observations, things we see. "Did you see the bacteria in the petri dish die faster than it did with the placebo? Yes? Good, the antibiotic works." Observations are themselves part of the testing of hypotheses, not something to be tested.

Quote:
We have no way to test the Big Bang theory


We most certainly do. Those are scientific observations that support the theory. They do not constitute proof, but they constitute more evidence than the ID theory has (that being zero) so the Big Bang gets discussed in science class, and ID does not.

Quote:
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life.

Show your work, please. With so many galaxies and planets we haven't been to and cannot observe, all we know is that we're on one of the most ideal planets we can observe. How does that support ID?

As for the laws of physics part, I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but would be happy to read your source, assuming a layman like myself can make sense of it.

Quote:
Have you looked at the scientific backing for ID? It's certainly there- the question is whether it means what ID proponents say it means.


I have read summaries of several ID papers (none in their entirety,) but you're going to have to explain the term "scientific backing" to me for me to answer your question. Scientific backing, to me, means evidence, and I've seen nothing that comes close to evidence to support ID. Everything I've read from Dembski and other ID proponents has zero scientific evidence. Show me scientific evidence in any ID material, and I'll be happy to read it.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff