Well, Russ, I can handle much more that you've dealt. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.
"Well, Russ, I can handle much more that you've dealt. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you."
Let me try one more time to help *you* understand.
Evolutionists regularly assert that ID does not even qualify as a scientific theory because it is "unfalsifiable."
That claim is baloney. To illustrate that fact, I postulated the following hypothetical scenario. We're walking along the beach and we see the message, "E = MC^2" in large letters in the sand.
Now, suppose I said, "I'm pretty sure that message was put there by an intelligent being. I don't think it was the result of random winds or waters."
As an evolutionist, if you are consistent with your claim that ID is "unscientific" because it is "unfalsifiable," you would reply that my "theory of intelligent writing" is "unfalsifiable" and therefore wrong.
You then replied that this scenario is contrived because we already know the writing wasn't a random result. But HOW did we know that? We didn't see anyone write the message. The answer is that we know because we have COMMOM FRIGGIN' SENSE!
Do you get it now? You have common sense about the writing on the beach, but you apparently have none with regard to the definition of "science."
What in the world does it take to get through to you guys?
Doesn't that just summarize every crevo thread.