Replies

"Speak for yourself.

I am. "

So, you admit you are NOT an example of integrity? That's the first step to recovery. Admitting you have a problem. :)

"Won't, and silly is your contention.

Dr Sternberg was treated shabbily.

I presented Dr. Sternberg's side of the story and he was there, the blogger wasn't so it is a refutation."

So, you have nothing to refute the facts that the blogger presented? I see.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

And yet you claim it has been falsified. Curious.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

So, you admit you are NOT an example of integrity? That's the first step to recovery. Admitting you have a problem.No. Okay. Fine. So what are you waiting for?

So, you have nothing to refute the facts that the blogger presented?

Facts!?

The Sternberg saga is turning into a creationist canard and martyr complex for all those "poor, persecuted" IDers. The myth is that Sternberg is some kind of heroic spotless lamb who was lambasted for choosing to believe in God by godless hacks like me. A guest columnist recently wrote that science is being "silenced":

What a loon you have for a source. And he admits to being a hack.

And yet you claim it has been falsified. Curious.

It should be curious, since I made no such claim.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."