So, my response was to show how intelligent design was not scientific. You then contradicted yourself by saying:
...intelligent design is a theory, not an experiment.
In order for something to be scientific, you have to be able to do an experiment and gather data. That was my whole point, to show that I.D. is not scientific, because you asked me to.
I haven't contradicted myself. And their have indeed been experiments. Doolittle, for example, cites an experiment with mice and removing certain blood clotting agents to refute Michael Behe. The ironic twist is that Doolittle didn't bother and read what happenned, and actually bolstered Behe's position-because it was shown that the blood clotting system is in fact irreducible. And, as irreducible complexity is the mark of intelligence...(just look at your computer...I dare you to disconnect your power supply, or pull out your processor, or remove your graphics card, or hard drive....)
And my point with the dragon and leprechaun was that just because some event at ALL is rare doesn't mean you can statistically extrapolate anything beyond what you have found. I didn't mean that leprechauns invented the earth.
Not rare, impossible. And it's not only negative evidence, there's positive evidence. But like most people I bother with...you ignored that part. specified complexity, irreducible complexity...marks of intelligence. A simple extrapolation of what we know.
An example: Event A is exceedingly rare.... this must mean a leprechaun had something to do with it!
If leprechauns are known to do event A, then, yes, you could point to them. But, as leprechauns don't exist outside of Scotland and possibly Ireland, it's highly unlikely that Event A in the US could be attributed to a leprechaun.
This is the same logic when equating something rare with an intelligent designer. You just can't do it, statistically.
As I've said, but you won't remember it either, so here it is again-it's not just that Event A is impossible-it's that it can be explained by intelligence-because we see intelligence doing the same kind of things today.
Yes, naturalistically. Naturalistically doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in there somewhere. Most of earth's processes (and some may argue all) are natural. (I say most because I have opinions about global warming, etc. which is a totally different and inappropriate topic). This says nothing about whether God had anything to do with it.
And this would explain why Stanley Miller and others adhere to some form or other of seeding from space by aliens. And this also explains why Richard Dawkins must explain the origin of life by begging the question. Really, if probability=1, then why do these people cook up stupid and self-contradicting stories to explain life's origin...
And you finally agree that faith alone should be enough for the faithful. That has been my point all along. Do you see the how unnecessary it was to get seemingly upset with me over my statements?
Faith is based on fact-if it's not, then you have blind faith.
And I'm not upset-I'm annoyed at the dribble that I've heard over, and over, and over....ad infinitum.
Also, it is possible to test the theory of evolution. Scientists have been in the Galapagos Islands for 40 years studying the evolution of the finches down there. And that is just one example.
That's a horrible example. That'll be microevolution.
