On the contrary, you should note that your continued repetition of the claim of "false" does not change the fact that the claims of ID, insofar as they attribute the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions to intelligent design, are reasonable and within the bounds of scientific inquiry. BINGO!
On the contrary, you should note that your continued repetition of the claim of "false" does not change the fact that the claims of ID, insofar as they attribute the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions to intelligent design, are reasonable and within the bounds of scientific inquiry.
Changing the subject so soon? And so abruptly? That wasn't the assertion he was declaring false. Why don't you try actually dealing with what he actually wrote, instead of running off in another direction?
And I note that you haven't bothered to even attempt to substantiate your claim that "the claims of ID, insofar as they attribute the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions to intelligent design, are reasonable and within the bounds of scientific inquiry", much less your assertion that this is not just a point which can be substantiated, but is actually "a fact". Go for it.
BINGO!
Singing a child's song about a dog now?