Replies

I prefer the 'tiny angels snipping DNA with tiny gold scissors' theory. It has just as much supporting evidence as ID. In fact, I *demand* it be taught in science classes.

Again, bad jokes are no substitute for good arguments.

Your side continues to lose ground in this debate partially because of the weakness of evolutionary theory and partially because of your childish attitude.

Again, bad jokes are no substitute for good arguments.

As I see you wouldn't recognize brilliant satire if it came up and slapped you in the face, here's the only argument I need: ID is NOT science. It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and should not be taught in science class, where we need our kids to learn about, you know, SCIENCE, and the scientific method.

Show me the hypothesis for ID that is testable and falsifiable, and I will be first in line to say that it should be taught in science class.

Again, bad jokes are no substitute for good arguments.

True. Nor is nonscience a substitute for science.

Your side continues to lose ground in this debate partially because of the weakness of evolutionary theory and partially because of your childish attitude.

Evolutionary theory is backed with mountains of evidence. have you read or understood any of Ichneumon's posts? Here's a recent one. Does ID have anything but arguments from astonishment? They haven't shown up here. Has ID been expressed in scientific terms yet? (Is it capable of falsification? What does it predict, and where will it lead?) Thus far, ID backers have presented nothing even remotely resembling answers to either question to the debate followers here on FR.

The "childish attitude" you term a "bad joke" is an example of reductio ad absurdum, a technique used to discredit an argument by demonstrating that if followed to its logical conclusion it would end in absurdity. The specific example you cited illustrates that ID enthusiasts are attempting to use an entirely spurious "debate" on ID to get it into science class. To date, there has been no scientific debate, only a debate between those who understand science and those who don't.

You should be pointed out that almost ALL evolutionists, on this thread or off this thread are WRONG.

They are not even getting the name of the debate correctly. They are not Evolutionists, but NS supporters. Or Lamarkians. Or whatever. If "Scientists" can't even get the title of the debate right, how can they proclaim anything is true.

IDer's are arguing over the evidence, lack of it, and poor science.

Evolutionists have constantly overstepped the utility of NS. The Texas prof that would not recommend a Med Student if they did not agree to Evolution (NS)...moronic dogma. Teachers in HS that proclaim to kids that their parents are stupid for their religious beliefs...sure helps with the debate. There are many examples, but we've heard them ad nauseum.

This thread is a perfect example. Let's make fun of religious people, and then scratch our heads when they go to school boards and make demands, or elect ones that fit in with their religion.

Of course anyone that would worship a limp noodle, when the beautiful spirals of Rontini are available, would worship anything.

Of course, the FSM is satire. Sure.

DK