“We got news for ya:
ID is NOT, in any way, a science, or scientific.
It has no way to test its “theory”, does not explain how things got the way they are, and offers ZERO evidence to back up its assertions.
IS IS simply creationism by another name.
Admit this truth and move on”
You have just proven you are ignorant of ID and completely clueless about hte issue- but thanks for your comment- it is quite telling of the blind bias that is prevelent in our society- Kudos for being hte moniker for blinad religious agenda!
If you’re pushing I.D., then YOU are the one pushing a blind religious agenda.
‘Cuz it sure ain’t science.
I’m done- I’m sure this thread will devolve into more bliand and ignorant statements in defense of the dying MacroEvolutionary hypothesis, and I’m sure more disingenious blatant scientifically ignorant misrepresentations will fill the pages to come- Have at it- The articles and the refutations of the blatant lies presented by PBS are there for you to either read or completely ignore per usual. do what ya want. If ya’ll wish to defend a seriously flawed biologically impossible Macroevolutionary hypothesis by presenting nothing more thna scientifically ignorant ad hominem attacks and outrighht blatant misrepresentations- then I suppose you have the right to your opinion. But it is non the less quite telling when you have to do so. If that’s the best ‘scienctific’ arguments you can present, then I guess it just goes to hsow how htreadbare the hypothesis of Macroevolution really is. But I’m sure some will defend it to the death with nothing but empty scientifically stunted accusations. The fact is that Miller got his but handed to him on a silver platter during hte trial, but amazingly, The bias of the judge and the influence of the ACLU were such that their objectivity was thrown completely out hte window during the ‘trial’. It was like the three monkeys who could hear see or speak no evil- Evidence? What evidence? We didn’t see any evidence- Criminey. Perhaps one day the judge monkey with his hands over his eyes will wil lremove them and see the facts objectively instead of with complete bias. but until then, I’m sure we’ll all have to endure copious amounts of bias and blatant misrepresentations ad nauseum
How can you test ID?
You can test the Theory of Gravity and Quantum Physics, why not ID?
What proof is there of ID being real?
"Saying Darwin is wrong doesn't mean you are right. There is an option that both could be wrong."
If there is intellegent designing going on, who is the designer?
What mechanisms does the designer use?
Does he/she like Elvis or Roy Orbison, Beatles or Rolling Stones?
Ad hominems and misspellings do not make a logical argument.