--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Peter > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Off, the main reason ID is not taken seriously by > > > science is that it introduces a metaphysical > > concept > > > (ie, a creator) that is not open to scientific > > > inquiry. If you can not measure/quantify a central > > > concept of a hypothesis, it's not science. > > > > And thusly, much of string theory is and must always > > be non-science. > > I don't know enough about string theory. But they must > link the concepts back to quantifiable concepts, yes? > That is, they wouldn't introduce a concept that was > unmeasurable.
Why not? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
