> > This is exactly why I think that ID should be considered only from a > scientific standpoint. All "scientific" ID propositions have been > successfully challenged and all that's left is untestable scientifically. > > If they're asking for this to be treated like science then do so. By that > standard it doesn't cut the mustard. >
It's the flying spaghetti monster all over again. Why apply science standards to something that isn't even in the realm of science? "Thank you, but your ideas are not scientifically testable." QED, end of story, bye bye ID. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase RoboHelp from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=59 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:183537 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
