Re: my little essay on the evolution vs. intelligent design case


donaldsauter@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip lots of BS>

And nowhere in it is any scientific theory of ID mentioned, nor any
explanation of how to test said scientific theory of ID using the
scientific method.

Why is that?

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Motion Through Space Is Meaningful
    ... > pair of clocks in any frame is c; ... > claimed to have a scientific theory which is based upon ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Kenneth Millers Interview with NOVA
    ... ID is not a scientific theory, ... citing the documented dishonesty and fraud perpetrated by Darwinists ... with misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?
    ... > disprovability is the essence of a scientific theory. ... an excuse for the vacuousness of your own version ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Motion Through Space Is Meaningful
    ... the burden of proof is on you to devise a REAL experiment to ... > Since SR is not a scientific theory, there is nothing to disprove. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Divine Intervention and the lottery
    ... >>> in conflict with some scientific beliefs. ... Take your example of Persephone - if the ... > is not clear at all how to reconcile this with the Persephone explanation ... >>existance make the scientific theory of electricity any better? ...
    (talk.origins)