Replies

<< I did answer a couple of your questions but it wasn't to your satisfaction. >>

It's not my "satisfaction" that matters. What matters is the scientific information you would need to know to be able to answer those questions accurately. If you don't have that information in your noggin -- you can acquire it -- but you have to understand the problem in order to do something about it. That's why I keep asking them.

You only tried -- half-heartedly -- to answer the first question, and all you said was that evolution says we evolved over a long period of time. Yes, evolution says that -- but that is not what evolution IS. That is a tautology -- not a definition of evolution.

<< It's trully strange that you say ID is not a theory. It may not fit into your box of theory definition but it is recognized as a theory. >>

No, it is not recognized as a theory. What's strange is that you seem to really believe it is. It is trying to GET that recognition through apologestics and sophistry -- but it is not a theory at all, and scientists do not accept it as one -- not yet. At this point -- the best that can be said is that it is an untested hypothesis. And as I said already -- unless it can be tested and falsified -- it's not a scientific theory.

And again -- you are wasting your time trying to post articles for ME to read -- when you won't read anything about science that I am sending you and asking you to read. It doesn't matter how many articles you post that agree with you about a designer. No scientific test has ever been devised to test for a designer -- and until one is devised, it's not a scientific question at all.

NOW PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY --> This does NOT mean that I do not believe in the possibility of a designer, nor does it mean that I do not personally believe in a god. It just means that science, so far, has not devised a way to test for a designer, or for a god, so the whole idea is unscientific and does NOT deserve a place in science class. Maybe philosophy -- or comparative religion -- but not science.

In addition -- the major organization pushing for ID -- the Discovery Institute -- revealed its true motive to be religious -- about "God" -- not about some unknown designer -- in its "Wedge Strategy" document. And I noticed you had no response concerning the fact I gave you in my last post -- that the leading "scientists" in the ID movement accept common descent and the ancient universe and earth. It becomes obvious, when considering these facts, that creationists are only glomming onto ID because their "scientific creationism" has been shot down time and again in the courts -- and rightly so, because there is no science in it.

And BTW -- what about my questions? Why do you keep wasting time with all your stalling tactics and misdirection -- instead of just answering these four simple questions. This is the seventh time I have asked them -- and if you had answered them the first time, it would only have taken a few minutes. Instead, you have written about half a dozen posts -- all the while carefully avoiding the questions. Why is that?

Is it because you don't really know the answers? There's no shame in admittign ignorance. Ignorance can be cured -- the only hindrance is motivation. Is it because you are afraid to admit that your only "exposure" to the evidence has been from creationist arguments? There's no shame in admitting that, either -- certainly not as much shame as there is in continuing to avoid the issue and post one straw man after another.

The real shame is in continuing to make these unscientific arguments and pretending -- or really believing -- that they ARE scientific. The real shame is that, in these last few days that you have been arguing with me, you could have educated yourself enough to at least answer the questions accurately -- and that would have helped you in your own argument, even if you did not accept the things you read. At least you would know what it is you are arguing against -- instead of flailing about with all these straw men.

Why not just answer the questions? Here they are, again -- for the seventh time:

1) What IS evolution?

2) What evidence is said to support it?

3) What are some of its predictions, and how have they fared?

4) How can it be falsified?