Sorry, I'm a free thinker. There are scientists that have more education than you or I, that agree with me, so what does continuing education have to do with it?
I'm also so secure in my beliefs that I don't need to put people down who don't disagree with me, as you and some other evos have attempted to do. Thou doth protest toooooo much.
ID is a scientific theory, and Evo is a scientific theory.
ID is a scientific theory
Except that 99+% of scientists don't think it is, and that by the accepted definition of 'scientific theory' it's not. Saying it doesn't make it so.
Even Behe, under oath in a court of law in the Dover trial, admitted that the definition of science must be changed for ID to be considered a scientific theory.
So you can repeat this all you want, but it won't advance your cause at all. Better find a new slogan.
The absence of free-thinking in science would mean that it goes nowhere. And of course there are scientists that have more education than I (I don’t know about your educational level), but I’d like to see the name of just one who would accept your position, which I quoted before, " that if the pro-ID people got THEIR own dictionary, would that make it correct, or does this separate dictionary only apply for the evo THEORY?"
I also doubt he/she would be hung up on the word “theory.”
This might be a good time to reiterate a previous statement I posted to you, which you didn’t address. “The pro-ID people are presently engaged in attempting to change the definition of science in an effort to claim ID is scientific. This in and of itself should be a convincing demonstration that ID isn't science.” Am I leaping to an unwarranted conclusion here?
I'm also so secure in my beliefs that I don't need to put people down who don't disagree with me, as you and some other evos have attempted to do. Thou doth protest toooooo much.
You know what? You’re right. I'll apologize for the tone of my last post to you right now. I'm sorry about that, and I'll try harder to stay on an even keel in the future. But I have to add this: It’s not insecurity, it’s exasperation. It seems clear from your stated unwillingness to accept that certain fields have their own vocabulary and their own particular uses for certain words that you’re unfamiliar with the topic you’re attacking. Am I wrong?
To illustrate, let’s go over this one again: My favorite flavor of quark is “charm.” Others are partial to “up.” Do “flavor,” “charm,” and “up” have the same meaning in this context as they do in everyday conversation? Of course not!
ID is a scientific theory, and Evo is a scientific theory.
In what way is ID a scientific theory, as the word is currently defined? Here are three questions every scientific theory must be able to answer in order to be considered scientific. Thus far, no ID proponent has offered answers to any of these:
1)What predictions does it make?
2. What new lines of inquiry will result from it?
3) How can it be falsified?
If you can answer these questions, you’ve done something no ID advocate has done to date. If, on the other hand, you start complaining about what you believe other theories do or don’t do, or pretend not to understand what “falsifiable” means in a scientific sense, then all you’ve done is demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about