Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
| Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,17:56) | | ? |
What I get is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to say that the fact ID can never be proven wrong and can only once (who knows?) be proven right makes it scientific for some reason. You seem to say that if you redefine "evidence" to mean just about anything anyone claims they perceive, redefine "empirical" to mean anything up to personal delirium, and redefine "intrepreting" to mean anything down to making stories up in your head, then ID can be considered science. And religion. Because religion would also be considered science. Or something. Then you say that we bend the rules.
Seriously, one post from that postmodernist generator above (seems quite a good one, btw) has more actual content than all your posts combined.
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
