Joined: Aug. 2006
|If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is...|
On the UD thread I said
|I just want your version of a scientific argument for ID.|
Please note the "your" part of that quote.
I'll admit I got a little lax on this thread and foolishly posted something less specific...
|Scientific argument for ID please.|
I apologise for any confusion.
I am only interested in your scientific version of ID.
If you told somebody at a party that you supported ID and you wanted to sate their curiosity then how would you make a simple, concise scientific argument for ID in sixty seconds/two minutes/ whatever?
If you don't want to do it, then fine.
Please don't dredge or do anything only half-decent on my account!
Its just that I am curious what thought processes run through a person's head when they get into the whole ID thing.
For me, the ID movement is a slow-motion train wreck, graphically illustrating anti-science and abysmally bad critical thinking skills.
I don't know you except that you post on UD and that you seem to support ID.
Can you make a real argument that does not involve hand-waving or vague, useless definitions?
You complained that in previous arguments with GCT that he twisted your words and
|...referred back to things I had said pages earlier.|
Well, I don't know about the word twisting but the referencing of your own words doesn't seem unreasonable. After all, what's the point of writing something if you're not going to stand by it later?
Come on Advocationist, just share your personal understanding of ID with us. AFDave got dreadfully dull after a while, but judging from the Herculean length of his threads, nobody can say we didn't give him a fair chance to state his case. In fact, we repeatedly begged him to. Can you do better?