Kerostasis

*Sighs*

You're making stuff up again Fenix.

I didn't dismiss being unable to prove the Dragon. I didn't even want to prove the Dragon. All I suggested was that the impossibility of disproving it stems from a different reason than the one you suggested. But you repeatedly refuse to even acknowledge this concept exists, and you keep attacking a point I'm not even defending, so there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

__________________

jex

Who says evolution is outdated? It is still, by far, the most accurate model we have for explaining life on earth. I'm no expert on evolution, but I respect the scientists I have listened to and read. It certainly has not been 'proven' false.

Intelligent Design has not won in the law courts either and has been shown to be completely lacking in any evidence.

In fact, we will turn into china if the religious sect have their way and limit what is learnt. Evidence of that can be found in babylon after 1100 AD, the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc.

I suggest checking out these links for some intelligent debate on the subject of ID.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

Enjoy

__________________
Jex

TheFeniX

I concede upon re-reading my arguement that it wasn't as clear as I wanted it to be. But that doesn't excuse the fact that your strawmanning my arguement to absurd levels.

You are basically claiming that because there are times you can prove a statement that has the word "not" in it, that burden of proof is suspect and can be ignored whenever it suits you.

You ask me to separate ID and TS, yet you keep making the same arguement that we've seen from the ID camp numerous times: you don't need evidence something exists for the possibility of it existing.

As I've said before: this statement has validity in a philosophical or theological setting. But this kind of reasoning has no place in a science classroom.

__________________