View Single Post
  #95 (permalink)  
Old 17-April-2008, 12:59 AM
Lonest@r Lonest@r is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 44
Default

Quick response, gotta go....

Quote:
you've never refuted, Intelligent Design is just a search and replace for creationism, in a book originally written in support of biblical Creationism.
in the case Dover and DI, YES. I refute the Dover adequetly represents ID as proposed by Philip Johnson...
Quote:
Most religions have some form of creation myth.
it's theology, again more slurs....
Quote:
the court considered was whether ID was science or religion
I have a problem with, as defined by government, and the decision was made by a single judge for that matter.... For example, what if a single judge ruled against some part of science, and my whole argument was that single case....
Quote:
it's the people who have used the courts to protect themselves from ID.
again, well stated.....

Quote:
what exactly are you arguing for?
Nothing related to Dover.... Like I said, I came here to understand why ID, though not scientific, is outright refused as an explanation, even though it maybe considered 'philisophical/idealogical', given the complexity of nature..........

NObody has addressed the quote from Kenneth Miller who also appear in the NOVA program in defense of Evolution.....