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.
You just got done saying astrology can't be a theory because it's been falsified. If your attention span can't handle the strain of remembering what you just said, the sentence is available for review.
If you don't like the words that come out of your own mouth, don't blame me. Nobody's forcing you to say this junk.
Well, maybe...
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.
Again?
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.
Who do you think is asking the questions? That's what all the little "Q's" stand for, "question". Are we to believe it's all on the up-and-up, this business about astrology? Make a legit case, if you can. I defy you. Or show me where the case made by the lairs at the trial was anything other than an appeal to emotion.
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.
No he did not. He clearly explained himself; nobody has any excuse for pretending they misunderstood - NOBODY.
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?
Nothing whatsoever. Nobody who supports I.D. ever said there was, to the best of my knowledge.
Perhaps you confuse I.D. with the ideas that have to be protected from scrutiny and questioning? An odd mistake, but not one that would surprise me at this point.
