k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 18 2014,00:44) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,06:53) | | Quote | | Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context. |
Whether you have the time or not is irrelevant, but if you want a full explanation you need those items. Science doesn't require them, but you really need them, to help make your case. The theory of evolution explains very well how life diversifies once it is present, but we won't and can't have a complete explanation for life until we have an explanation for its origination. That lies outside the purview of the ToE, but is absolutely required for a Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Your ideas are too weak and incoherent to form a theory and you haven't been able to support it from within, but demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes would be a good route to compelling people to take seriously proposals of design in areas currently explained by the ToE. It would go a long way to making your signature line something other than vapid verbiage. |
You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.
This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum. |
Irony you're doing it.
--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
