Friday, September 15, 2006

Testable ID?

Of course not.
Expirements require scientists. Scientists add CSI to the mix. Therefore anything that we ever find out proves ID.
These people sicken me. They want it both ways - scientists cannot create life? That's because life is to complex to have arisen on it's own (as the expirements are trying to prove.
Scientists create life - ah, this proves life needs intelligent design.

In that case, dog shit on the street requires an intelligent designer. However, there's more then one poster/commenter over at uncommonidiocy that i doubt could even manage that! Tread on it and track it back to the "lab".
Hey, you've got proof of a ghostly designer on the sole of you shoe!

Amazing how they are always predicting the demise of Evilution, but cant come up with any predictions of when it'll happen, or a test that will disprove it.

but it's ok - there's only trivial evidence in any case for it, so it's not surprising that it's due to fail.
What is not so widely understood is that there is no scientific evidence to support this theory in other than trivial biological ways. Not that these trivial biological events don’t have major repercussions such as Social Darwinism and eugenics have shown. But these ideas are based on the most simple and straightforward biological processes. Comment by jerry — September 14, 2006 @ 9:46 pm

So, just so i'm clear, the towering edifice of darwinisn is about to fall, but they are still trivially supported? How come? It's falling but stable at the same time.
No scientific evidence on uncommondescent perhaps, but THERE'S A FRIKKIN TON OUT THERE IN BIOLOGY LABS, BOOKS, PEOPLES HEADS.


No comments: