Quote from jem:
duh..... that is his opinion... you call that a response...
It is a nobel prize winners opinion in his field.
Are you proposing he is not basing his opinion on evidence?
That he and the others I have quoted -- all of a sudden have psychotic breaks with their fields of research and understanding once they offer an opinion you find challenging?
if his opinion it is not worthy of weight... explain why he, a noble prize winner is wrong.
if it is not based on science explain what it is based on or why it is not based on science?
Is it because you feeeeeeel he is wrong?
because you do not want him to be right?
because it conflicts with your preconceived ideas?
Quote from stu:
Talk about overkill .
You know, if that sentence could reproduce mutate and be subject to natural selection, I wouldn't even have had to remove the offending word. Subject to natural selection, it wouldn't have survived.
My bad. I didn't notice I had included it.
- What is it ID'ers have against <strike>inanimate</strike> organisms that reproduce, mutate and are subject to natural selection simply showing the results of all that in designs and as a matter of fact?
It makes little difference as the question still stands.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Illogical.
You are trying to fight one opinion, i.e. non design evolutionary theory of scientists...with some other opinion of a scientist.
Go deeper.
Exclude opinions from being labeled as fact, and the whole game changes.
Quote from jem:
go deeper yourself you skimmed right over the real issue.
you did not answer my question.
why is it that you feeeeeeeeeeel that the expert's opinion is wrong.
you have given no basis to reject it.
Quote from stu:
What facts do you think they are? Not those Evolutionary ones for some reason ?
What a load of rubbish.Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Evolutionary facts?
Funny...
Presupposing evolution generates facts of biological processes...fascinating. Truly fascinating.
Evolution is a process, not the biological organisms themselves.
Even the theory of Darwin has "evolved" into different theories...so the theory of evolution has evolved, but biological processes themselves? Nope.
It would be interesting to speculate if any complex biological organism evolves first, or Darwin's Theory evolves itself out of science first.
I also note how you capitalized "Evolutionary"....again, quite funny.