GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 15 2015,20:52) | Gary at
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-541958
said,
| Quote | | In my honest opinion the ID movement has to focus on scientifically testable operational definitions, not more metaphors. |
and slightly later,
| Quote | | For this premise to be “science” you are obliged to provide a testable model to demonstrate/explain how “intelligent cause” works. What do you have for me to test? |
Of course this has nothing to do with our harping for hundreds of pages on how you need operational definitions and testable models (not sure about testable definitions, however), but what the heck, Gary, if you can now say this, why don't you produce operational definitions and testable models for your reeking pile of crap? |
And you especially spend way too much time on metaphor driven preaching of your religion, Atheism, where all is revealed by rehashing a philosophy filled 1950's Darwinian pop-science that couldn't even get its retina biology right.
I have a testable model and scientific theory to demonstrate/explain "intelligent cause" and you have nothing even close to that. It's only expected that the religion you represent would have to deny the simple way the scientific process works. Denial is the only thing you have to keep on believing that ID has no science in it at all, when it certainly does now.
Oh and here's the link where I found the deer mouse picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Rodents
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
