The Theory of Intelligent design as fuel for Scientific Discovery

Creationism has the status of a conspiracy theory.

Interesting, you go after creationists, not what is being talked about. I suppose that is to be expected, if you think your beliefs alone are unquestionable, anything that questions them must be less than. Is that why you don’t defend your beliefs? You can only believe them; you cannot defend them against those who don’t believe, so you insult and pretend that is all that is required?

"not what is being talked about" - but you are a Creationist and you repeatedly post material in support of that belief system, including the belief that all living things were created at the same time.

Is this not true?

What I believe can be the topic of discussion; by all means, you can present counterarguments without resorting to insults, at least I hope so. If we disagree on a narrative, then the narrative should be questioned and examined, not each other’s mental fitness, unless all you have is the fact that you believe you’re right; therefore, anyone disagreeing with you is automatically a mind-numbing conspiracy theory creationist, and is therefore below you on the scale of who should be taken seriously.

But your belief that all living things were created at the same time means that you're a evolution-denier and that's on a par with conspiracy theory.

That is rich. If I disagree with you, I’m on par with a conspiracy theory; it cannot possibly be an honest opinion while living in the same universe as you.

I’m willing to bet you didn’t watch either video, and not only that, but you also have no intention of doing so, because they may say things that disagree with you, and you run scared in that respect. If my views get questioned, I’m all in to defend them; you insult the one who doesn’t see things the way you do and cut off communication.

You may hate the fact but modern evolutionary theory isn't just accepted by the scientific fraternity, it's also accepted by all the major religions of the world.

Those who deny it are in an increasingly small minority.

I am not concern about scientific trajectories as I am what is true. Your opinion about what others and how many believe what is meaningless. The thing I have noticed that basically that is your whole argument, others believe this not that, not that you can give specific reason to refute anything or give cause that you can defend with cause.

"Without evolution nothing in Biology makes any sense" - this is often said by those who have studied the subject with great care. Generations of Mankind's smartest people have studied the subject of evolution and found it to be a broadly convincing explanation for the vast diversity of living things we see in the world today.

Nonsense, without evolution, biology science loses nothing; it gains insight knowing that the processes in biological life were well-designed, not products of accidental providence. Random chance in an unguided system is unable to assemble the pieces with such precision that we obtain a clear definition of species or processes.

Without clear guidelines for processes, you will never achieve error checking, as they prescribe the correct number of levels that must be maintained, and stops and starts are implemented to ensure exactly what is required in all the various systems that need it.

Now, many people believe (not me) that an infusion of information over time gave rise to new life, particularly among plants and animals. So, where could that new information come from that could alter something and turn it into something else? That is a much harder thing to explain than see it all start at once and degrade over time turning into new things over time due to the degrading within biological life.

Much of what you claim even denies the irrefutable evidence we find for evolution in the rocks!

Some 98% of all species found in fossilised remains no longer exist. And a large proportion of all species alive today are unknown in the more ancient fossil record. How is this possible if all living things were created at the same time?

No, there is no irrefutable evidence that proves your point; it is your interpretation of the evidence that is where the disagreement is. It is not the evidence; it is what you think it means. Your issue is that you think you know, so anyone who disagrees with you is denying irrefutable evidence, because that is how you see it, and you only accept as worthy to listen to those who see things the way you do.

That is quite the mindset to believe only your point of view is the only acceptable one, all others must be ignored and rejected without a hearing. You honestly think your narrative cannot even be questioned, and all who do are unworthy of a voice. We live in the same world, we are looking at the same things, and you describe it one way, with an unguided material narrative, as to how we arrived at our current state. You accept this so much that if another questions it, you don't address the question; you go after the person, because they have proven themselves to be unworthy of a voice, by raising questions about the irrefutable evidence.

As usual this conversation has become a waste of time...

As usual you think if your not being agreed with it is a waste of your time, instead of defending your beliefs you treat them as unquestionable truths!

Do you only discuss things with people that agree with you?