Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science

On 4 Dec 2005 22:42:41 -0800, in talk.origins , "topmind"
<topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
<1133764961.563840.104270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

>Nobody has seen it perform major changes to actual organisms. They just
>plain have not. That is a fact.

Are you ever going to tell us how to distinguish a "major" change? If
"major" changes are just lots of "minor" changes then we have seen
them in action. That is a fact.

[snip]

>Useful? Nobody can say up front if a future discovery will be useful or
>not. That is ridiculous. As far as "predicts nothing", it shares
>potential characteristics of MU in that regard. Is MU a big labelling
>mistake? I cannot get a strait answer on this. Did the likes of
>Astronomy Magazine accidently put religion in their mag by talking
>about MU? That is where I first read about it. If MU is not "science",
>then what the h8ll is it?

You keep playing this game. When we point out how empty ID is your say
"But MU is empty". I notice that you don't say that to physicists and
that you never acknowledge that even the strongest proponents of MU
say it might well be empty. Somehow you think that the existence of
speculation means that anything is science.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

.

Relevant Pages