Image via WikipediaDenyse is a Canadian author and blogger who has been writing on the Intelligent Design "controversy" for years. You can check out her Post Darwinist site here.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Quote of the Day: "The problem is not that Darwinism conflicts with popular opinion but that it conflicts with the evidence."
Image via WikipediaDenyse is a Canadian author and blogger who has been writing on the Intelligent Design "controversy" for years. You can check out her Post Darwinist site here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
For lack of something better to do I was watching Daily Planet last night. The topic was, "What did dinosaurs taste like". With a straight face the hostess explained that some 'scientist' had compared the amino acids of dinosaur bones with chickens and found that they share a common ancestor, therefore dinosaurs tasted like chicken. Having lived in Drumheller and found dinosaur fossils in the ground I can assure anyone reading that the rock that looks like a bone doesn't contain any amino acids. Let alone any acid that is of sufficient quality to ascertain kinship of one species to another.
To bad ID has been spanked in court and revealed has nothing more that Creationism dressed up in a white lab coat.
ID argument of Irreducible Complexity has been shown to be wrong in each case that has been presented.
ID "Theory" has no predictive modelling, which is failure of the scientific method.
ID "Theory" is not repeatable, which is another failure of the scientific method.
ID "Theory" is not observable, which is another failure of the scientific method.
History is not repeatable, but that doesn't seem to prevent historians from doing their work.
Is OOL science repeatable? If so, when will you be creating life in the lab -- and doing so without any intelligent directing or agency on your part?
Is the Big Bang repeatable? Or this yet another failure of the scientific method?
Plus, was this topic even about ID?
Other than that, you present some good anti-ID "talking points".
So now we have a court deciding which is science and which isn't?
I hope its not the same court that says gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. They kinda missed the biology there.
Oh by the way Zorph the rest of your post is just as silly. They haven't 'shown' anything yet.
Post a Comment