Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,08:39)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2012,08:16)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,08:11)|
|You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?" |
There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.
Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.
I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.
Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.
You are really confused. I asked a question and get random gibberish about religion, Jones, etc in response.
I have no interest in religious models, religious research or anything else.
Let me try this again.
DOES YOUR NOTION ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING?
You are the one who asked "How will it overcome the current paradigm?" and it's not my fault that's where that question ends up going. At least can't say I was ignoring you. I was just being as precise as I can, and you maybe got more information than you needed but at least it's in there somewhere.
I'm now though just drawing a big blank wondering what more you could even ask for in a theory that made what is most important to know about the mysterious insect central complex quite obvious, and all else your model is no help for figuring out how it works.
What do you expect a theory to do and what does that accomplish?
To tack on to what oldman said
So, you cannot actually state a single thing that your notion actually does or predicts, correct?
So, you cannot actually state a single piece of evidence that supports your notion, correct?
All you have is a big pile of words with "intelligence" liberally sprinkled throughout.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.