RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Occam's Toothbrush

Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2007,18:36   

This quizzlestick person over at OE must be loki.  I mean, come on:
Critics of Intelligent Design often present the same few objections to our theory: They claim that we do not yet offer a testable theory, and that we avoid peer-review of our discoveries because we have something to hide.

Yep, the same tired old objections to our theory:  1)  You don't have one.  2)  There's no legitimate research to back up the theory you don't have.

I mean come on, evolutionistas, is that the best argument against ID theory you can come up with?   That it doesn't exist?  As we all know, you can't prove a negative, so the theory that there is no ID theory is itself fallacious.  QED, design.  
Those of us who have spent hard years grappling with the finer points of Intelligent Design know that nothing could be further from the truth: There is no group I know who work harder to attempt to explain these difficult scientific topics than ourselves.

We don't have time to do scientific research, we're too busy "explaining the difficult scientific concepts."  To ourselves.  
Intelligent Design is the tiny-seed from which will grow an enormous tree of science

It's a lot bigger when it's hard, I swear.  No really.  Stop!  Come back!

"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]