3.1.1
Joe
January 15, 2012 at 7:47 am
Elizabeth:
Right now, ID remains a philosophy, not a scientific theory.
The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, can be tested and either confirmed or falsified.
OTOH ypour position is not based on cause and effect relationships and cannot be tested. Yet you consider your position to be scientific.
And if you want to model something you have to understand it first…
3.1.1.1
Elizabeth Liddle
January 15, 2012 at 9:32 am
The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships, can be tested and either confirmed or falsified.
I don’t think so.
3.1.1.1.1
Joe
January 15, 2012 at 9:38 am
I know and have demonstrated so.
And if your position had something then ID would be a non-starter. Yet here we are.
Zippiddy-do-da, zippiddy-a, my oh my ID is here to stay…
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/does-stopping-discussion-of-id-in-brit-schools-violate-the-equality-act-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-414965
-----------------------------------------------------------
joe-baby, the only thing you've ever demonstrated is that you're a delusional, dishonest, arrogant, cowardly, blustering, ignorant, uneducated, insane fool.
Yeah, ID is 'there' to stay, in the puny minds of you brain damaged IDiots and in the obscure websites and books that 99.999999999% of the world's population has never heard of and couldn't care less about.
Science has "something", joe, and it's a lot of "something", and that's the reason that science doesn't give a rat's ass what you fairy tale believing morons think (well, except the parts of science that study mental illness). You IDiots are the ones with NOTHING but your bald, insane assertions. Science is here to stay, joe. Get used to it.
By the way, I still haven't seen you calculate the amount of "CSI" in a banana, or a tick, or a watermelon, or your fat ass, or anything else. Why is that, especially if you can 'test' and 'confirm' ID in nature?
I have to admit that it's a lot of fun watching you make a gigantic fool of yourself on UD and your site. You obviously believe that you can just baldly assert shit and that somehow the world, and science, will bow down to you and accept whatever you say as 'the gospel'. You actually believe that you're affecting and/or advancing science and that you and your fellow IDiots are the ones who get to direct which way scientific research should go. You couldn't be more wrong.
Tell you what, joe-blow, look back at the last few decades of the ID agenda and then try to convince me that the 'ID inference' has affected and/or changed the way scientific research, and especially evolutionary research, is done.
And while you're at it, let's see you "model" your chosen god and associated fairy tales.
