"That’s the big part IDists won’t own up to, because they know their Omnipotent God wouldn’t be allowed in science classes. So they keep playing the “it’s not about the designer” game, and science keeps just rolling its eyes."
willy nilly murray (aka meleagar) respond:
"An appeal to motivation is irrelevant to the debate at hand. You might make room in your conception of the ID community that not everyone has such ulterior motives and focus on the facts and logic of the arguments presented."
The so-called ID 'hypothesis/theory' was conjured up by creationitwit god zombies and is pushed by creationitwit god zombies. You're flat out lying and you know it, or should know it. The ulterior "motivation" for you IDiots is to cram your religious beliefs into every aspect of everyone's life whether they like it or not.
You mindless sheep attack science, and especially the ToE, because they're a threat to your fairy tale religious beliefs. You and your fellow thumpers spout religious nonsense while claiming that you're being scientific and focusing on facts and logic, yet you think that no one with a clue will notice your contradictory dishonesty. You're so fucking crazy that you actually believe everyone else is too!
You are the ones making a "categorical error" (comment 34.2) when you think that you will replace science with your delusional religious bullshit. Keep your insanity to yourselves and stop trying to pervert science!
"The first step in identifying suspected design, and the most important step, is understanding the identity and capabilities of the designer."
willy nilly responded:
"How does one say anything about the identity or capability of a designer before they even have an item they suspect of being designed?"
Huh? What? Did you really say that? YOU Idiots are the ones who not only "suspect" that many or all "item(s)" are designed but you constantly claim that many or all "item(s)" are designed! Since you IDiots do that, constantly, Gino's point is well taken, and you have no legitimate excuse to avoid it.
By the way willy, I'm still waiting for you or any other IDiot to "handily" calculate the "FSCO/I" in the things I listed in my previous post. You said that it can be "handily" done, so "handily" do it. Oh wait, you later said that you just read that it can be done. In other words, you were talking out of your IDiotic ass when you said (about "FSCO/I"):
"It is rigorously defined, and it can be calculated handily."