[Fester Chugabrew]

What exactly is your point?

1.) To encourage open inquiry in the general sciences, and thus not stipulate what may or may not be proposed as testable hypotheses - including, but not limited to, those that may entail the concept of intelligent design - but rather welcome the creation of reasonable statements representing the observer's understanding of the universe.

2.) To participate in a hearty debate over the merits, or lack thereof, in encouraging the above by questioning in some detail the assertion that the Theory of Evolution is the only valid interpretation of the evidence presented by the known universe.

3.) To be an instrument in the creation of a Theocracy that will jail all public dissidents, especially those who openly engage in questioning the authority of the Bible.

NOTE: One of the above points is entirely unrepresentative of my point. Can you tell which?

[balrog666]

NOTE: One of the above points is entirely unrepresentative of my point. Can you tell which?

#1 an #2 are non-sequiturs, meaningless, or even oxymorons, if you prefer, and #3, while simple idiocy, has its obvious adherents.

I guess all of them, or that you have no point, which is essentially the same position.

[js1138]

Number three is quite doable. The other two need a lot of clarification.

First, there is an open debate. We are doing it, and none of us are going to jail for our opinions.

There is no limition on what may be a testable hypothesis, except that it must be testable.

If you would like to propose an alternative to evolution, fine, but it needs to be compatible with the evidence gathered by science over the last several hundred years.

For new theories to be useful they must predict or account for all existing data, plus predict some yet undiscovered data.