JohnW
Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
| Quote (Robin @ April 20 2010,09:53) | | Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:46) | |
| Quote | | Quote | | Remember, Dembski said "ID is religious." |
This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages. You guys aren't even listening. Not even paying attention. Repeating the same refuted claim.
U gotta be kidding. Honestly. |
LOL! Ummm...no, we're not. The fact is, Floyd, your argument was fallacious - begging the question, moving the goal posts, engaging a strawman, etc - and did not in any way address the issue. The fact is, Dembski DID say that ID is religious. End of story. For you to insist that such isn't the definition of ID and thus doesn't count is completely irrelevant and missing the point. It doesn't matter whether ID being the Logos of John is the definition of ID or merely and logical summary of it, it still makes it based on religion and thus NOT based on science and that is the end of it. It thus can't be taught in any school no matter how well the 3-pronged definition is scientific.
Sorry Floyd, but that's reality, not your packaged, empty claims to the contrary. |
I believe the technical term is argumentum ad afdavum.
Make claim.
Watch as claim is blown apart.
Wipe crap off face.
Declare victory.
--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
