And furthermore-
-since when is it "real science" to a priori rule out ANY argument? If you have decided what the final answer must be prior to beginning your investigation, then you have left the realm of "real science" and traded it for what your limited senses tell you, and more importantly, what your personal desire is were you to be God. You are not God and I am continually fascinated by how alleged intellects attempt to limit the conversation to avoid that which makes them uncomfortable. Not being God as you might suppose, you cannot have all knowledge and cannot determine that God doe not exist. Neither can you tell anyone what they should or should not post. If you do not want to deal with "real science", or certain discussions, how is it that you cannot come to the conclusion to move on? One of the great ironies here is that you would affirm that God does not exist and yet you ascribe meaning to what you do. Apart from God you have no meaning being nothing more than a cosmic accident, risen from the primordial goo with nothing more to hope for than to return to the dust form whence you came. What motivates you to even bother confronting ID?
