Where did I criticize the position that astrology is subject to scientific investigation? Please provide quotes from me that support your assertion.
Okay. Find the post in this thread where you started this nonsense.
Michael Behe, himself stated on the witness stand in Dover, PA that the requirements of science would have to be lowered in order for ID to be considered a theory.
It's not even accurate, if anyone cares to read what was actually said. It's not "the requirements of science" he's discussing; it's a legalistic "official definition" that's in question.
An official definition put forth and agreed to by the majority of scientists. Who do you think should decide definitions in science? Michael Behe? Kent Hovind? Pat Robertson? The Pope? You?
It is perfectly correct to say science can investigate astrology, so why mock someone for saying so?
I didn't.
I didn't say you did. Plenty of evolutionists do, and anyone who buys your self-defeated argument mocks reality. Even to repeat such garbage as if it had merit is to mock the readership.
Nothing I repeated or provide reference to said that astrology cannot be investigated by science. You brought it up out of thin air or a lack of reading comprehension. You apparently believe I said it or repeated it but have failed to provide a direct quote concerning it.
Any definition of 'science' which excludes investigation of astrology must be defective - not the other way around.
The definition of "theory" in science does not exclude investigation of astrology. It just excludes astrology from being a theory because it has been falsified.
Evobabbling double-talk. There are no falsified theories? How dumb do you think we're willing to believe you are?
Does it take a lot of effort to be as dense as you appear? Where in the above statements does it say there are no falsified theories except in what you wrote? And you say I put words in people's mouths.
I never said anything about nor alluded to the definition of "science".
I never said nor alluded to the idea that astrology cannot be investigated.
Has reading comprehension always been a problem with you or is this just a recent phenomenon?
I know what's not a recent phenomenon: Evolutionists contradicting themselves. We already have quite a showcase. Do we need more?
You saying that I am contradicting myself here is a brazen lie. I will maintain that it is a lie until you provide the quotes where I contradict myself in this thread.
Your argument is that investigating ID is equivalent to investigating astrology, is it not? Or do you just post links to liars making this argument for our amusement?
I did neither and it would be easy for you to provide the quotes to show that I did. You did not, so I believe this is also a misrepresentation of what I did.
For the record, please, do you believe that Michael Behe is a liar? He is the one who said that changing the definition of "theory" within science would make astrology a valid theory. He did not say that investigating ID is the same as investigating astrology.
This is not a corrupt courtroom setting. I can and do challenge this brazenly bogus argument.
Challenge away!!!
BTW, what is wrong with investigating ID using the same scientific requirements that are used to investigate chemistry, physics, Germ Theory of Disease, or astrology?
