Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 11 2019,15:33)|
|Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 11 2019,14:28)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 11 2019,12:13)|
|Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 11 2019,14:09)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 11 2019,13:59)|
|Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 11 2019,13:52)|
|Well that was fun.|
Besides the binary categorization of designed/not designed, what have ID scientists learned in the last 20 years or so?
And how is this binary categorization helpful?
What is its practical use for biologists?
Where does a scientist go from "This was designed"?
From "this was designed" now we have new and interesting questions to explore. And we would start looking for that something besides physics and chemistry that ID says exists (in living organisms).
Like what Joke? What new questions will "design" open for exploration and how will they be tested? Biggest question is why haven't any IDiots been exploring them?
timmy Horton is totally ignorant of science.
What new questions opened up when Stonehenge was determined to be intelligently designed?
How is a murder investigated differently from a natural death? What new questions does murder open up?
timmy, you must be one of the most ignorant and angry, pathetic cowards, ever.
It is very telling that you never ante up
The obvious answer is "whodunit", but ID is forbidden to ask.
Wrong again, dumbass. ID is not about the designer but ID does not prevent anyone from asking nor looking into it
Then why aren't any IDiot "scientists" asking or looking into it?
Are they all as stupid and dishonest as you are Joke?
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"
Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.