Replies

Um. Huh?

Let's review. Your first and only post before your #56 stated, in it's entirety:

Hey, bot, that article is a lot of nonsense. There is no connection between humans and chimps.

Then, your next post stated:

An aside: Why isn't the bot (PH) responding to my post above? Will someone please animate the Bot? LOL! Just joking here, guys. Don't take it seriously. Sometimes I expect a fast and prompt answer and forget that the person may not be here at the moment. I'm sure when he comes online, he'll notice my intelligent posts and respond appropriately. I do not expect him to agree with me, only that he gives me not a vacuous and timid answer. LOL!

Hmmm, now please do kindly point out to us vacuous and timid folks who accept science what your question to PatrickHenry was.

Then, read his tagline and understand why he's not wasting his time with you. You call him a, "bot," don't ask a question, then insult him for not answering your non-question.

You creationists never cease to amaze. Case in point, you also say: Intelligent Design is on the borderline between theory and law.

You have no idea how absurd that is, do you?

>You have no idea how absurd that is, do you?

As I understood it in the definitions posted above: Hypothesis->Theory->Law. So, it may not be afull-fledged theory theory yet...more like a hybrid between theory and law. That's ID.