[[This line of attack is particularly ugly, since it attempts to use a combination of fallacies (”if any aspect of TToE fails, the entirety must fail”) and the converse (”if any aspect of TToE is wrong, the only substitute is an “intelligent designer”).]]
Maybe you’ve been absent from FR for a good long time? Because there are a great many areas where TOE fails- not just single insignificant areas- you’re falslely portraying the ID position- we NEVER said the hwoel would fall if ANY single area is proved wrong- Never- but htere ARE enough areas where it fails miserably to point to a very strong ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case against Nature being hte creator- being capable of complexity, being capableof violating scientific precepts etc- there are myriad threads here on FR talkign about all manner of areas in TOE that fail
[[These fallacious conclusions may be satisfying but they meet neither logical analysis nor, more importantly, scientific muster.]]
Does falsley portrayin the position of ID and creationism ‘meet scientific muster’? Talk about fallacious!
[[Did God make Man in His Image? The Bible is clear (and Christians understand): YES. Did God use evolution to create what we know as Homo Sapiens? The scientific evidence of billions of artifacts and millions of scientists say (again, to Christians and Jews and deists) also YES.]]
Um- you might want to look more closely- there is MUCH debate about our suppsoed ‘species line’- and even folks in your own camp dissagree with your emphatic claim
[[God should be in the classroom — but not as a magical agent in the scientific process.]]
Nope- apparently, only hte magical process of science violating Natural causes shoudl be allowed in the classroom evidently?
>>Maybe you’ve been absent from FR for a good long time? Because there are a great many areas where TOE fails- not just single insignificant areas- you’re falslely portraying the ID position- we NEVER said the hwoel would fall if ANY single area is proved wrong- Never- but htere ARE enough areas where it fails miserably to point to a very strong ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case against Nature being hte creator- being capable of complexity, being capableof violating scientific precepts etc- there are myriad threads here on FR talkign about all manner of areas in TOE that fail<<
But none have a scientific alternative. Your opinion, such as it is, doesn’t create one. Your attempted argument boils down to “it is too hard to understand so some THING did it.” And, you also don’t even try to name the THING.
>>Does falsley portrayin the position of ID and creationism ‘meet scientific muster’? Talk about fallacious!<<
That is not only bad speling but it is nonsensical.
>>Um- you might want to look more closely- there is MUCH debate about our suppsoed ‘species line’- and even folks in your own camp dissagree with your emphatic claim<<
You fight the “we found a knot in the thread” fight. If an alternative scientific theory has been proposed as a result of your unsupported “dissagree”ments then I have not read it in any science journals. Got a link?
>>Nope- apparently, only hte magical process of science violating Natural causes shoudl be allowed in the classroom evidently?<<
If you have an alternative scientific theory to hte TToE, then publish it and you shall be hte magus of hte centuries. Hte fact you don’t understand science and thus see it as “magic” is your issue and certainly not to be put on the backs of schoolchildren.