I was going to quote another user on this, but if you don`t mind i`ll do it with you. Sorry if it`s a big post. If you want go to the last paraghraph.

It`s not that hard to put scientific knowledge into question.
People see or observ something and what is the conclusion? It`s a mix of what they see with what they don`t see. Where, through our imperfect and incomplete knowledge, do we see that what happens can only happen that specific way? Where in what we aprehend is "written" that it isn`t possible to be in a different way? Isn`t that a leap of faith? Wouldn`t it be fair to just say that what i see is what i see and at the same time i can`t tell if it`s the only way or not as my ability to know isn`t perfect or absolute.

People question the flood, people question Mary`s conception, for example, but is it based on the absolute certainty that it can`t be? You can answer that question yourself.

The thing is people don`t make real conclusions from what they aprehend, they make assumptions and sometimes not even that.
For example, people believe that nothing can`t create something. But somehow in the beggining of the universe and it`s continuation they stop taking that into consideration.
Imagine that the so called singularity was constituted by letters A and B. They were there from the start and then the world evolved and AB and BA were created. What is the explanation you will hear? A and B got together and AB and BA were formed.
But the truth is only A and B existed so how something new like AB and BA got to be? That isn`t explained. And to me (my vision of ID) is that AB and BA were already there in each one of A and B. They didn`t exist as AB and BA because you can only be one at once but the potential was there. Just like a videogame that allows you to do a certain amount of actions yet you don`t get to do all of them at once. It takes time!

This is an extract from an apparition in Portugal in 1917. If you want and i invite you, read about it and you`ll understand why scientific knowledge or any kind of knowledge is the end all be all:

"The people had gathered because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the Blessed Virgin Mary would appear in a field in an area of Fatima called Cova da Iria. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky.^[4] It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds.^[4] The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern,^[4] frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world.^[5] Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".^[6]

Estimates of number present range from 30,000 to 40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século,^[7] to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra,^[8] both of whom were present that day.^[9]

The event was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, a reported apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children who had made predictions of the event on 13 July 1917,^[10] 19 August,^[11] and 13 September.^[12] The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them^[13] and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."^[14]"

If you weren't making a counter-argument, then why bring it up at all? Pointless.

It is inherently true. How is the scientific method not true? The scientific method is true through it's use of logic, something with is a priori knowledge - an understanding of the concept means that it is inherently true without research needed e.g. all bachelors are unmarried.

Its just called conversation......not everything has to be so heated. I was just mentioning an interesting observation, nothing more.

@Story of fatima. So, in accordance with my commitment to truth, I cannot possibly say that this is false, because I was not there to witness it. It could be true, though I presonally do not believe it is. The important thing is to take the correct stace, which is the true one, which says "I am not 100% certain that this is false, but I (mildly/strongly)doubt/believe it and here's why...".

@A, B, AB & BA. The thing that would help you understand how AB & BA could arise from A and B is that, in our universe, given enough time, it is possible for elements to come together and form AB & BA.

My personal question would be, how did we get the primordial soup, how did we get the original environment for life. But once you have that, it could be possible given the pressures and energies that abide in the cradle of life to create the building blocks for life.

I personally don't believe it, but given the scientific processes we know, at least the creation of amino acids from basic inorganic compounds was simulated.  I'm not saying that it happened, I'm just saying that it could be possible. The most important thing is to look at all the possibilities, and at least get to the point where we say "It's possible and likely", "It's possible and unlikely", "It's possible in this context, but given the laws of the universe it's not possible in this context", and go to the bottom of the scientific reasoning without being affected by our pre-disposition to believe on thing over another.

That's what I mean by a commitment to the truth. I know it's difficult, but it is the dirty work that must be done. I call it dirty work because though it may be the right way to go, it may lead the thinker into paths that shake one's worldview and as such can feel like shacky or slippery ground. But for the sake of our friends, for the sake of the people we talk to and for our own sake, it's something that needs to be done.

I told you man, I'm not irrational.  Just becuase you've only seen the endgame, sick of the zealots Runa doesn't mean I was always like that, or that there isn't more to my stance.  I've always believed that Jesus was real, and that the bible was at least partially historically accurate.  I just don't think for a second that automatically means everything in the bible is unadulterated truth.

I also don't think that all religious folks are bad, in fact I grew up with enough people of MANY faiths that I know better.  Religious people are just like every other religious and non religious person:  we're all just trying to do the best we can with what we've got, and we're ALL trying to make the world a better place (even if your moral stances are less than desirable to the masses.)  The only real difference is that SOME people are using religion as a way to make the world worse, to preach hatred and bigotry, to start wars, and to generally be asshats.  My 'goal' has never been to take people's hope away (though I do thoroughly and honestly believe that any faith is hogwash), but to take away that weapon used to preach intolerance and hate.  The reason I am so aggressively against it is becuase the world has this collective shit on the idea that religion needs to follow the same logic any other argument needs to take, and I take great offense to that, and you should too.  

So really, I just want to take this 'perfect' weapon away from those who would use it to spread ignorance, halt scientific progress, or preach hatred and bigotry.

Get where I'm coming from now? 

DélioPT said:

Do you know how many things in your life you haven´t seem, yet still believe? Know why you believe them?

About the apparition itself, i only gave you a glimpse. If you read it you`ll see how it`s more than just a miracle.

As i said, it`s not about the process. It`s about understanding how something created what it`s not. That`s why i used the videogame example. The whole game is already there from the start and with time (playing) you`ll discover said game.

If all A and B know/have is to be A and B, how can AB and BA exist? My view is that they exist because A and B already had AB and BA within them and given the encounter AB and BA became real.

So, if you believe that something creates something, from that singularity everything was already in it although all of that may or not come into realization.

@bold. No I don't, I don't pretend to know how many things I haven't seen yet still believe, I don't keep a record of my faith. What is the point of this question?

@apparition. What do you mean by "more than just a miracle"? Do you meant that the supernatural is part of what people should come to expect? As for reading it, I'm not sure what you want me to find. I've read it, and read many like it, I'm not sure what you want me to look for and am not in the mood for rabbit-hunts.

From the material world, all we know is that something that is not, is not. Until it is, it is not.

So, given building blocks A and B, there may be a moment in time where AB and BA do not yet exist. Over time, with process P, P(A,B,t) -> (A,B,AB,BA).

Simple stuff.

I really hate that chart LOL. I'm sorry, I can just imagine every snob in an internet court room throwing those words at each other "That's a XXX fallacy! What a conundrum!".. lafjsdlkfjasldkfjadsfa!!... So frustratingly obnoxious.

I like conversations that go places... I don't expect everyone else around me to be logic magicians, I just like easy-going... discussions. The internet is such serious business sometimes. If discussion halts every minute because someone goes Ace Attorney on each other's shit, it gets boring and repetitive really fast... except between those few people who care more about the argument.

@bold. No I don't, I don't pretend to know how many things I haven't seen yet still believe, I don't keep a record of my faith. What is the point of this question?
Sorry, i should have made it clearer. I wasn`t talking about religion. Was thinking about things that people believe like friends, family, etc.

@apparition. What do you mean by "more than just a miracle"?
Just saying that what happened was more than the miracle part. But since you read it, you already know it now. That was all.

All the A, B talk was a way of me saying that something always comes from something, even if the what leads to the creation of a second something is hidden within the first something. More than that, it was my way of saying that things are a product of intelligence... just like in a game.