Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:03:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:23:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


You are.
If you feel that perhaps at some future date ID and creationism be
considered 'scientific'

Which point you have been belaboring all along.
I have not said that at all.


All that I have said is that it may be possible that phenomena or
tests discovered in the future could be used to prove/disprove some of
the points.

And all we have said is that it isn't a question of phenomena or tests.
Its a question of logic and definition and utility.


There is noting wrong at all with logic and definition.

I have simply pointed out that your definitions of absolute
certainties may well not be those of others.



It is you who has taken the extreme perspective and extrapolated it
into saying that this means that *all* of it could be.

Of course. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly acceptable tool of logic.
If the logical consequence of a proposition is absurd, so is the
proposition. If you fail to accept that point, we are at an end of the
discussion. You are not arguing a rational case. Ergo, rational argument
is pointless.

The case is perfectly rational. You are suggesting that your set of
definitions are absolutes. I am unconvinced by that.


Fools are only ever convinced of their folly.
I expected nothing less.



This is a very long way from saying that they should be considered as
part of science.

It is not, It is exactly saying that they should be considered part of
science. By using the phrase 'examined in the context of science
education.' you are immediately declaring them to be worthy of
scientific consideration, and ipso facto part of science.

Again you are extrapolating. I have not said that I consider that
they are *worthy* of scientific examination in the sense that they
should be considered part of it and given a lot of air time.

poor weasel. very poor. Sometimes admitting you are completely and
utterly wrong, can save you needless repetitive defenses against a
superior opponent armed with weapons he knows how to use?

No?

Ok...on we go..

The very clear point that I made was that they should be tested using
scientific methods. If they fail at the first or second hurdle, so
be it. I have no problem with that. The whole purpose is to show
why that is the case (if it is).


But there is no point in showing you further, since you do not ascribe
to any principles of logic known to man.

At this point one is tempted to issue a red card..its only deep
compassion for your witlessness that holds me back..

...and the fun of watching you make a total utter arse of yourself. I
feel one should never deny oneself the keen edge of Shadenfreude, don't you?