Summations Only

I retract what I've written below. I've subsequently been corrected by Larni who pointed out a double negative I'd missed. In the interest of accuracy, I'm leaving my faux pas uncorrected. Maybe it might even serve a purpose in demonstrating why it is so difficult to understand what Dawn is trying to say.The whole point of this discussion with you was to tackle your claim that ID should be taught in the science classroom. You have made post after post trying to explain why it is science, using your ToL,O&P as evidence of it's validity as science. You've claimed that yourToL,O&P is a scientific theory. After all these posts, we're none the wiser as to what you're actually saying when you use your ToL,O&P.However, your post, numbered 300 in this thread, finally contains a statement from you that has something of substance to it. It's a single sentence and it is as clear as a bell. You have stated These are your own words, lifted straight from your post, not a quote from someone else that you used. They're your own, actual words, typed by your own fingers to explain what you're saying. I've not pulled a fast one, I haven't misquoted you, I copied and pasted your words into the quote box.Do you see your problem? Why the hell should we teach anything to do with your ToL,O&P in the science classroom when you have finally admitted it ISN'T science? You've spent post after confusing post trying to explain why it IS science, only to come up with that little gem above. I have to ask. Do you actually know what you're trying to say? If you've managed to utterly confuse yourself with all your nonsensical writings, join the club.To summarise your voluminous posts, you've stated that ID should be taught in science class, you've claimed that your ToL,O&P is scientific, that ID is science, you've claimed that your ToL,O&P is scientific evidence for ID and after all that you come out with your statement, which bears repeating Just incase you've missed it Edited by Trixie, : To write retraction.

Gotcha! Sorry, I missed that the first, second and umpeenth time I read it. Does Dawn ever bother to write in what we would consider stadard Engish?Maybe Dawn can explain what would falsify his/her theory. All through this thread we've asked and all through this thread Dawn has made assertion after assertion, but neve once tld us what would falsify his assertion, which, as far as I can tell is a subjective opinion.

The light has just dawned - you don't actually know what a hypothesis is. That explains alot.

I do agree with nwr, to some extent, that the thread ended up derailed and I confess that I had a part to play in that. However, I think this derailment may have served a useful purpose.agent_509 explained very clearly the false dichotomy that exists in YEC teaching, that its either YEC or atheism. His subsequent enlightenment shows just what that false dichotomy will lead to, should problems with the YEC position become apparent to believers. It's also something that biblical inerrantists will have to face in the same circumstances.By stating that this is an either/or case, the YECs have painted themselves into a corner. As more and more evidence has been gathered by science, they have become unable to hand-wave it all away and so have tried to use science to argue their case. Unfortunately they know so little of science that they can't come up with valid explanations. This is never going to change since I believe that to hold a YEC position you have to be science illiterate. If you understand the science you can't honestly hold a YEC position.To attempt to stop this inevitable loss to the YEC community, they've had to sound "sciencey", use strangled and confusing arguments and instill fear in their followers, i.e., if you don't stick to the YEC position you have to throw the whole Bible out. This is an attempt to prevent their followers with more questioning minds from asking questions and investigating for themselves.As soon as a YEC realises the bullshit they've been fed, they lose faith in anything the YEC crowd has said to them in the past, as evidenced by agent_509. Cashfrog had a brilliant idea for agent_509 to revisit his creationist posts and show us where his mind now takes him with regard to those arguments. That would have been fascinating. Unfortunaely derai9lment arived in the form of Dawn Bertot.I have to say that I think this derailment did serve a purpose. It provided in all it's awful clarity the very reasons why agent_509 abandoned the YEC position. The utter stupidity and ridiculousness of many of the arguments, assertions and explanations and the falsehoods, lies and see-sawing of position and definition are very apparent. Seen in isolation those statements and explanations may seem plausible to a YEC or IDist, but when they come thick and fast in one place the inconsistencies can't be missed and the whole shebang comes crashing down. By conflating Yecism with biblical inerrancy the YECists have just about guaranteed that any conversion from YECism will be to atheism.