You keep mentioning this as if it's some sort of death-blow to evolutionary theory. What we see is that some comets appear to be coming from an area outside of the Kuiper belt which we know almost nothing about. We do, however, know a fair amount about how our solar system is likely to have formed, and the Oort cloud is not exactly a great imaginative leap. At any rate, if the outside of the solar system ended up being populated by fire-breathing dragons, what's that got to do with the fossil record?

Once the next generation of telescopes is functioning, including the James Webb space telescope, we'll be able to see more of what is out there. Scientists don't appear to be terrified that they will find something which will expose their worldwide evo-conspiracy.



Einstien was just making stuff up, was he? Gosh, that pretty much invalidates all of relativity and quantum physics. Your derision toward scientists seems to know no bounds. His theories have been put to the test for decades and they have been validated by these tests, the first and one of the more famous ones being his predictions about the orbit of Mercury. But if you'd like to explain to us why Einstein was wrong, go right ahead, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.



That's reassuring. I seem to come across a lot of claims that suggest that the makers of those claims don't understand the science they are talking about. It's refreshing to know that some people educate themselves before they criticise something.



You believe that the Bible is literally true and I don't suppose anyone is going to convince you otherwise. People with a more objective view might accept it as their holy book and accept its deeper truths while accepting that it is not a scientific book and that the inconsistencies and outdated cultural practices and beliefs therein don't threaten the very foundation on which their faith is based.

Not many people are going to agree with the notion that any holy book -- the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, etc -- is scientific and accurately describes how the world works. That isn't even their purpose. Besides, how can you actually prove, as LinearAQ was asking, that God, your god and no one else's, created the world in 6 days? This is not science, it is belief.

Regarding Einstein again, why does it seem to be necessary for the legitimacy of someone's ideas, that they come from a blinding flash of insight without being based on the existing ideas of others? Anyone who is creative, artistically or scientifically, builds on inspiration from other artists and scientists. Also, you seem to be suggesting that because the tests for ether have failed, therefore we must also fail the theory of relativity. Like I said, though, relativity has been tested for decades and it has not been disproved. Maybe there's a bigger reality out there, waiting to be discovered, which will extend beyond relativity, just as relativity extended beyond classical physics. We haven't found it yet though. If you Google you can see for yourself the ways in which relativity has been tested.



You will whip a dead horse won't you. You don't think that the quote from Henry Morris gives a little hint that ID's agenda is to "wedge" open the way for people to spread creationist beliefs? You don't think the fact that Of Pandas and People is a creationist book with the words "creationist" and "religion" removed, is evidence that ID is religion? You can carry on about this all you like but as I said, it isn't fooling anyone. Have a look at the transcript of the Dover case, in which this book featured. Most of those people weren't fooled either.



If any are actively performing experiments in creationism then yes, I'd like to hear about it. I'd really like to know how you would validate creationism as a science by doing empirical tests.



I've lost you here. Your link led to a passage from the Bible.



OK, I think the main issue here is that someone who says they are incredulous of something, and therefore that's an end to it, is not being scientific. What's more, a good scientist is not going to subscribe to being credulous/incredulous about anything, because science is about what the evidence shows, not what people do or don't believe. Mind you, I'm talking to a creationist about why belief is not compatible with science . . . Gravity? Seems to be true. Aliens visiting earth? Appears not to be. Depends on where the weight of the evidence points. You probably won't believe this, but I accept evolution because that's where the weight of the evidence points, not because I have a burning need to believe in it. In fact, until I was roped into talking about it here by creationists quoting Kent Hovind, it wasn't something I'd ever thought about much. I'm more interested in lots of other things, though researching it has been enlightening.

Back to the point, it is unscientific to say "I don't believe that" without rigorously putting this idea to the test, and explaining why it can be valid in contradiction of an accepted theory. Theories are not overturned by someone saying "I don't believe that," which is essentially what ID seems to be all about.