Replies

LIke I said, if you want to "talk story" as the Hawaiians used to say, start a thread on the story topic of your choice. That would make the irrelevant relevant.

As for comparing the solar system's structure's testability to speciation-evolution, that's quite a stretch. We can flick comets millions of miles away due to knowing exactly where we are. We can "do" it, and it was tested in a lab before the awful, expensive real test. That's not quite the same as looking back millions of years and insisting on a progression that cannot be replicated in a laboratory.

"LIke I said, if you want to "talk story" as the Hawaiians used to say, start a thread on the story topic of your choice. That would make the irrelevant relevant."

Now your just babbling. You said that stories cannot be wrong, only bad. I told you a story about a paranoid woman. Was it wrong? Yes or no.

" As for comparing the solar system's structure's testability to speciation-evolution, that's quite a stretch."

We still don't know the solar system's complete makeup. And you're comparing the accumulation of facts (how the solar system is organized) to a theory (evolution). They are not the same things, nor should they have the same methodologies or the same verifications.

"We can flick comets millions of miles away due to knowing exactly where we are. We can "do" it, and it was tested in a lab before the awful, expensive real test."

We flicked comet's in a lab somewhere? And why was it awful?

"That's not quite the same as looking back millions of years and insisting on a progression that cannot be replicated in a laboratory."

No, it isn't. Both still have scientific methodologies and both are testable though. Your personal dislike for historical sciences is not a logical argument against their validity.

That's not quite the same as looking back millions of years and insisting on a progression that cannot be replicated in a laboratory.

No one is insisting on the infallibility of the ToE; that's the OTHER side. When and if sufficient evidence is brought forth, the theory will change (or evolve, if you will....but you won't) or be replaced.

And you have yet to offer any evidential support for ID. It's not as if the ENTIRE scientific community got together and said, "Hey, let's disparage/disprove the concept of design!". No, ma'am. A group of faith-shaky non-scientists decided that THEY couldn't reconcile science and their weak beliefs, so they "mobilized", "stuffed envelopes" and did all that other stuff that makes them so valuable to you as an armchair Carville-back. The problem is, none of what they did involved science. But what does THAT matter?