Is ID science? Redux

Emphasis added:

As can be seen from the restored context, they were colewd’s words.

Either colewd is lying and hopes no-one else knows how to use a scrollbar, or colewd is forgetful and doesn’t himself know how to use a scrollbar.

All I want for Christmas is for colewd to be given his own special area on PS.


As an ardent opponent and critic of Intelligent Design Creationism, I welcome and celebrate @colewd’s active participation in this forum. His posts are as strong an argument against ID as can be.


Why do you think that Rum and everyone else is changing the words I am using?

Evidence please.

That’s essentially the same thing.
[“A mind”] = [“ A mind ”]
[“can make”] = [“ as a mechanistic explanation for ”]
[“X”] = [“ functional information and other cellular artifacts ”]

Here is an example.

How is that an example?


Is that your latest excuse for dodging questions? That everyone else is changing your words?

1 Like

When you are dodging the real argument by asking questions that enable your straw-man arguments I will deflect them.

Bill are these your words or not?

The questions is what is ID’s hypothesis and test which would support your claim a mind produced physical genomes?

So you can’t claim anyone changed your words. Now will you finally answer the question? And NO, having human minds design things is NOT a test of your ID claim.

1 Like

OK, it is your latest lame excuse for dodging questions. Thanks for the clarification.

This is the second thing you resort to assertion. Your claim here is your opinion and I disagree.

It’s an example of a claim that is refutable by scrollbar.


Bill continues his strategy of lame evasion to all questions about his ID claims. Why are you here Bill if you are going to run from all discussion about your ID position?

1 Like

Tim, a real discussion is continuing to improve on alternative explanations. If you come up with a testable mechanism that can account for the micro machines we see in the cell then you will replace the design argument at least for major evolutionary transitions. Straw-man arguments and assertions are not really productive.

Please explain how having a human mind using a human body and human produced tools can physically create an object supports your claim a mind with no physical body and no physical mechanism can create physical genomes from scratch.

BTW Bill work on your basic logic. Just because a human mind CAN design things is not evidence a mind DID design genomes.

More lame excuses and question dodging. Try answering the questions you are asked and not running like a scared bunny rabbit all the time.

1 Like

Again, it is vehicle to test the claim.

Bill runs from the question once again. Sigh.

1 Like

It seems that the only theory being tested is Einstein’s definition of insanity.

This is a very good time to shut this thread down. It’s become a dead end.