Replies

"String theory has it's first big falsifiable test scheduled for 2010."

If so, it is a very recent development. And if it's the search for super symmetry, that's not a falsifiable test. My point was how huge resources have been funneled into ST, it is taught as a science, no falsifiable predictions were made, yet no complaint for decades from your camp until it began to pointed out as an example of bias.

"It is also not, by courtroom decision, involving perjurious attempts by creationists to fly a religeous tenate into the science classroom under false colors, in defiance of the 1st amendment."

This was a lower court decision that does not even have jurisdiction over a single state. The Supreme Court has decreed more than once that this is a Christian nation. Most people in this nation call themselves Christian. Public schools traditionally taught the Bible and biblical doctrine with no outcry about the first amendment. The founders supported the Bible being taught in public school. A federal court recently rebuked the ACLU by stating that there is no constitutional separation of church and state. There is no need to sneak God into the classroom, because there never was legal authority for courts to restrict religious speech.

What this judge ruled was essentially if someone is religiously motivated, they do not even need to mention God, and their viewpoint can be silenced. That is a ludicrous and egregious abuse of constitutional interpretation.

The problem with people like you who jump on this bandwagon is that if some judge makes an erroneous ruling, you announce that the issue is settled. Yet you ignore other rulings and precedents. The issue is far from settled.

This is just an example of how some people prefer to have the courts determine the demarcation issue. You can't defend your standard of demarcation such that only science you like is included, so you have to politicize it.

My hypothesis meets the standard of demarcation by any reasonable manner. Neither endless debate, changing the rules, nor edicts of a judge will change this fact.

You have brought up two good points out of hundreds of posts. You identified a flaw in my argument against natural history. And you argued that abiogenesis might be such a long process that we may never be able to observe it. This second argument does not negate that my hypothesis is both supportable and falsifiable. Most else you have said contributes nothing to the debate. I am of the opinion we exhausted the limits of a fruitful debate.

Thank you for taking the time to debate. I have found it interesting and useful to my objectives.

I am of the opinion we exhausted the limits of a fruitful debate.

I was of that opinion a long, long time ago.

Thank you for taking the time to debate. I have found it interesting and useful to my objectives.

No doubt. The more you get to wave this silly notion that ID is somehow scientifically respectable because of an unlikely thought experiment whose details you refuse to specify, the more propaganda points you get with the scientifically illiterate.

The problem with people like you who jump on this bandwagon is that if some judge makes an erroneous ruling, you announce that the issue is settled. Yet you ignore other rulings and precedents. The issue is far from settled.

The problem with people like you is that you'd have trouble locating your nose in front of your face. ID is on the agenda because of the desires of a specific set of religeous fruitcakes in the US egged on by a specific christian outfit with a specific, published goal of defacing the teaching of science to make room for the teaching of their specific religeous tenates. Pretending that this is about a scientific idea of marginal concern, natural, intelligent abiogenesis, is a cover for this attempt at public fraud against the 1st Amendment, which you are assisting with this bulbous, bogus nonsense of yours.

Your point about library books is also mis-directed: there isn't a problem with public libraries containing religeous works, because they, and their ideas are not being foisted on student by force of law, and not being fraudulantly represented by educational authorities as proper fodder for a scientific education. The 1st amendment abjures Establishment. It does not abjure acknowledgement.