"You offer "evolution" as an entity. "
I offer evolution as a tested scientific theory. The scientific community agrees with me 100%, so what do you base these accusations on?
This was a statement about YOUR argument as it related to mine. Not the holy science of evolution. You're either shifting,straying, or misdirecting. I'll leave that up to you.
Note the first two go so far as to say ID is trash. Also two of the most influential scientific institutions, the NAS and the AAAS.
Looks like a bandwagon appeal to me. Look beyond your favorites list.
""Science" may not. But evo-worshipers do. It has become their theology, and they pervert science by supporting it in dogmatic fashion."
This is 100% your opinion. The scientific community has no problem with evolution. Where are your refernces for these outrageous claims?
Ooooooh, how dare I. My, ...outRAGEOUS claims, indeed! It is my opinion. You're getting a bit silly, really. I merely said that a lot of folk [shucks, darn] are hangin' their hat on the whole "ain't no God" thing. Evolution makes their atheism intellectually fulfilling.
"non-sequitor. "
How? If we just accepted "god dunnit" as an explanation for all natural phenomena, then science would never progress, since there is nothing to research. Do you know what non-sequitur means?
Because it was. We dudnt....you facetiously posited it. Science DID progress, and does, for many modern moons with God or Gods as an acceptable possibility. humility does not kill the human spirit or the inherent insatiable desire to explore....unless it's a weak one. I suggest that it is the religious evolutionist who has occupied the flat world. and yes, it's my opinion.
" The subject was ID."
I'm glad you brought that up. Can you please provide a link to the body of research on ID? You know, peer reviewed papers written on it, data... research and conclusions... I want to learn more about it. I want to learn what ID has tio say about genetics and diversity... Oh wait... there IS no research body on ID. How strange... almost like it's not a real field of study...
Yeah, as I expected. Not scientific at all. That's you, not ID. I've got the same google you do. Would you read it? objectively? Try "Dembski", or "Behe", or the access research network. Try scads of other posts from thousands of crevo threads on this board alone. The information is out there. You're too busy digging into the dark ages.
"Looks like a bandwagon appeal to me. Look beyond your favorites list. "
It's not bandwagon appeal, I'm simply pointing out that while you may call evolution unscientific, the scientific community wholly endorses it. The links I provided are a very considerable portion of the biology research community, not just molecular biology. So when you say "look beyond your fanourites list," where exactly do you refer to? Not anywhere within the scientific community...
"You're getting a bit silly, really. I merely said that a lot of folk [shucks, darn] are hangin' their hat on the whole "ain't no God" thing. Evolution makes their atheism intellectually fulfilling."
How some people fit evolution into their lives is completely irrelevant to the topic of the scientific integrity of evolution.
"Yeah, as I expected. Not scientific at all. That's you, not ID. I've got the same google you do. Would you read it? objectively? "
I'll read anything you give me on ID from within the scientific literature. Not being in the literature does not mean it is unscientific, but it could just as easily be a complete fabrication, so I won't waste my time. If Dembski could write an actual biology paper that is scientific, he would publish it, he hasn't, neither has anyone else.
"Try scads of other posts from thousands of crevo threads on this board alone."
You are presenting posts on a debate board by people with absolutley no science background as proof? While in the same breath you dismiss what the people with years of education, who have devoted their lives to researching the subject say? You seem awful selective about which science you trust.
Post some links to actual science information. Saying "read Dembski" and you'll understand ID is like me saying "read Jules Verne" and you'll believe in sea monsters. I can find tons of links to people trashing Behe and Dembski's books, but I would not post them because there is no accountability, anyone can publish a rebuttal to ID nonsense, same way no one can stop IDers like Behe from publishing whatever they want.
But there is forum with accountability for this subject, peer reviewed publications from the biology community.