Evolution vs. Creation

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
HARD SCIENCE - any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of hypotheses and experiments.
All of those describe our natural world with empirical evidence. If you can't find intelligence in the description of this natural world, you are either in denial, or don't know what defines intelligence.

then why is there not even a hypothesis of ID?

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>then why is there not even a hypothesis of ID?

No one has attempted to unify all the branches of hard science and atheists like you get in the way of progression.

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>explanation for what? ami supposed to know what a two word quote was about from some unreferenced past?
you don't even know how to ask a proper question...

keep up with the conversation and learn to carry on. You responded to my post with that question.

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
No one has attempted to unify all the branches of hard science and atheists like you get in the way of progression.

if no-one has attempted it, how could anyone have gotten in the way?

Are you really that stupid? you ae making a fool of yourself...

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>if no-one has attempted it, how could anyone have gotten in the way?
Are you really that stupid? you ae making a fool of yourself...

That's why there is no progress in the first place, because you atheists are a threat.

[Subduction Zone]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
No one has attempted to unify all the branches of hard science and atheists like you get in the way of progression.

Wrong answer.

Unification of the sciences should not be necessary for a hypothesis of ID. And of course a hypothesis is the an early step in the formation of a theory.

But you probably do not know what either one is.

[Subduction Zone]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
That's why there is no progress in the first place, because you atheists are a threat.

Right.

I didn't do my homework and it is all Jimmy's fault!

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>
you don't even know how to ask a proper question...

Either you don't understand the theory of evolution or you don't know how to respond well when confronted with a problem in the theory without personal attacks. What contribution do you have for being in the Darwinian cult? lol

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
That's why there is no progress in the first place, because you atheists are a threat.

when in fact, it is the religious cult members that continually block scientific study and teaching.

please give some specific examples of atheists blocking any scientific studies in any field...

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Either you don't understand the theory of evolution or you don't know how to respond well when confronted with a problem in the theory without personal attacks. What contribution do you have for being in the Darwinian cult? lol

What problem was I confronted with? you asked a question with no frame of reference.

[Cybele]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong answer.
Unification of the sciences should not be necessary for a hypothesis of ID. And of course a hypothesis is the an early step in the formation of a theory.
But you probably do not know what either one is.

How would you hypothesize evidence for intelligence for everything that exists when intelligence are exhibited in different ways that we now identify as different branches of science?

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>What problem was I confronted with? you asked a question with no frame of reference.

You are dodging my question. You have nothing to offer at this point.

[FREE SERVANT]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>then why is there not even a hypothesis of ID?

This thread would be a good place to present one. Oh wait, thare are how many regular readers here? ;)

[Cybele]

Cybele wrote:

Anyone knows why fish of different species evolve differently? Is this really evolution in action?
For example the Pacific leaping blenny has evolved into having complex social life out of water. Their way of finding a mate made them less dependent on water. Classic example of evolution.
But then I find another species, the electric fish mormyrids found in Africa that will only mate with those that produce the same electric signals and not with those that have different communication patterns. Researchers think that they are diverging into separate species. How so?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/...

did you miss this Woody?

[Cybele]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Right.
I didn't do my homework and it is all Jimmy's fault!

No I know you're just doing your job and I am a threat to you. lol

[Cybele]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>This thread would be a good place to present one. Oh wait, thare are how many regular readers here? ;)

First we have to define God.

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
did you miss this Woody?

No.

[woodtick57]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>This thread would be a good place to present one. Oh wait, thare are how many regular readers here? ;)

yes, it would be, wouldn't it? why has no proponent of ID ever put up even a hypothesis for ID? could it be that there isn't even enough evidence for it to even make hypothesis?

yes, that would be why.

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
First we have to define God.

Myth...there that part is done. where's the hypothesis?

[FREE SERVANT]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
First we have to define God.

Wouldn't we say God is the one that brought the universe into existence?