[gondramB]

>>That may be the conclusion behind it (when the science is realized), however that is NOT the real scientific evidence behind ID/Creation Theory.<<

Every time I address this I worry I’m gonna sound like Bill Clinton.... but here goes...

It depends on the meaning of “theory.” Most people learn about “theory” in geometry class where a theory is anything that is proposed but a theorem has been proved.

But in advanced science a theory is a well substantiated explanation - not just a proposal. But a theory is never proved and never becomes a theorem because it is always subject to new evidence.

So.. to a scientist, you can’t I.D. a theory because it not substantiated. And I.D. certainly is not a “useful theory” because it doesn’t make predictions that can be tested that are not made by other theories.

And to a scientist its not an insult to say evolution is theory - so are lots of scientific principles used routinely to do useful work.

I’m sorry for the semantics but I think the words being used are part of the problem here. There are of course serious fundamental differences too but it would help if we can eliminate the language problems so we can at least understand each other.

[JSDude1]

It depends on the meaning of “theory.” Most people learn about “theory” in geometry class where a theory is anything that is proposed but a theorem has been proved.

by your same defintion Darwinism/evolution can not be considered a theory either: it can not be definitively proven, and always subject to new evidence also.

[CottShop]

[[So.. to a scientist, you can’t I.D. a theory because it not substantiated. And I.D. certainly is not a “useful theory” because it doesn’t make predictions that can be tested that are not made by other theories]]

Good golly- you either are ginroant of the FACTS about ID, or you KNOW that ID IS predictable, it IS falsifiable, it DOES make predictions- NOT that any one of these are a requirement for theories- Popper’s assertions are NOT the basis upon which somethign is scientific or not- But even still ID meets all of these self imposed ‘requirements’ that soem fella outside the scientific model proposed

Next you’ll be complainin that ID hasn’t any peer reviewed papers- which again is NOT a requirement for science, however ID DOES meet even those ‘requirements’ imposed by people outside of science.

Got any other petty false accusaitons about ID that you want to get off your chest before we continue our way back to realityland?

[grey_whiskers]

Drat! Where's that "thunderous applause" picture when you need it?

Cheers!