[freedumb2003]

>>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.

[CottShop]

[[But none have a scientific alternative. Your opinion, such as it is, doesn’t create one.]]

You keep saying that- but no matter how many times you do- you still will never be able to escape the NEED for an intelligent aagent behind the compelxity- Tell us- Is nature that ‘intelligence’?

[[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.]]

Then you haven’t looked hard enough- and it’s more than a simple ‘knot in the thread’- Way to downplay the issue

[[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.]]

This is why I don’t like discussing thigns with you- You start off wel thought out- then turn into an insulting dolt- stomping your foot and declaring Creationsits ‘don’t understand the science’ in NO way explains away the impossibilities facing Macroevolution- I’d have htoguht you’d have known that- but apparently that has escaped you- but yeah- keep stomping your foot and offerign nothign but silly accusations- Macroevolution will STILL be chemically, biologically, mathematically and naturally impossible- so yueah- You folks ARE putting your faith in a magical natural process which soemhow creates pure supernatural miracles which defy nature itself

[[Ignorance is NOT a conservative value.]]

You are correct- that’s your realm- enjoy!

[CottShop]

[[ 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.]]

Ah yes- we should just keep beating it into their brains that ‘we don’t know how nature violated several key scientific principles, but by golly... ‘it just did’ and ‘we just don’t have the answers yet’ Swell copout! Nature HAS to be magical IF it somehow violated several key scientific principles trillions of times- infact, it has to be downright supernatural- Tell us Freedumb- how did nature accomplish these supernatural feats? “It just did” and “You just don’t understand science” isn’t an answer I’m afraid!