"Steve Peterson"
Why, oh why, am I still engaged in this?

"Fletis Humplebacker"
"Steve Peterson"
Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you could still post something worth reading.



You're very generous. Sounds like you ran out of ammo but
then again blanks don't do much anyway. Is that better?


But the "You didn't" vs "I did" exchanges have ceased being of interest, at least to me.


Odd that you read them.


Actually, I skimmed them to get some idea if there was a new thought. Usually not.


Odd that you skim them.


In other words you can't refute my comments.


Your comments are utterly of no interest to me. You can believe whatever you want, and you can argue it with anyone who wants to
play. My interest is in the ID proponents who want to teach it in science classes, without establishing a scientific basis for
their claims of such blather as irreducible complexity.


But there's no scientific basis for teaching that it happened on
it's own. That's what has and is happening. ID is simply saying
that scenario doesn't look likely. Many scientists do see evidence
for design so it's reasonable to teach it as an alternative possibility.
I know it's the same old point but your bias shouldn't be the rule
in tax funded education.


If you believe there is a Creator who has been directing evolution, and that evolution can't explain us, who are 98% equal to
chimpanzees (DNA), please continue to do so.


Whether is was programed to happen that way at the begining
or was directed later on doesn't change whether it was designed
or not. And that 2% apparently makes alot of difference so I
don't see your point.


Just don't try to inject ID into science classes. Philosophy, theology, no problem


Yes, I will try. And you can keep proselytizing a materialistic
answer to everything, even though there's no scientific basis
for it. The voters will decide in the end and I'm glad they are
waking up to it.