[Last Visible Dog]

We don't skip them, we are just not afraid to say, "We don't know YET."

So let us get your logic straight.

Your theories are "scientific" but they are based on the premise "we don't know" - ID is “nonfalsifiable” therefore it is not scientific. So, using your logic – if ID simply stated “we don’t know” then it would be considered “scientific”

Yeah.

Right.

[Aric2000]

What the devil are you talking about?

Evolution is verifiable, makes predictions, is falsifiable, all the hallmarks of a sound scientific theory.

ID on the other hand, is A: NOT verifiable, because you say, irreducably complex/goddidit, that is NOT verifiable.

B: ID makes NO predictions, it says, irreducably complex/goddidit, no need for predictions.

and C: It is NOT falsifiable, when you say goddidit, how can I Prove SCIENTIFICALLY that you are wrong? HOW? You cannot.

ID is NOT a scientific theory, there is NOTHING scientific about it.

You want to call it religion, you want to call it philosophy, Hey, GREAT, I won't argue with you.

BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE!!!

Are we straight yet? or are you gonna argue with me to be argumentative again?