Come, come. I haven't given you a single shred of evidence on this thread for you to accuse me of this. I mean if you think I'm mocking you when I disagree with you AND again when I agree with you, how exactly are we supposed to move forward towards this new, better world view?

Should I NOT accept your points as true then? Cause if not then I'm REALLY confused as to what I am being told I should believe...



Whoa! I thought we determined that science was evil and self serving. That scientists and by extension their craft are trying to perpetuate a world view that they know is wrong. So why is the "s" word in there at all!!????? Didn't you say once that if people did something wrong (science) then we are fools to keep doing it?

If the hypothesis to our new theory is that science can't explain said facts, why dirty ourselves by having any new theory, be it ID or Create or other, even try to be "scientific"? Would that lead to the same moral dilemmas we already have?




This is what you ask of Oxy.
Coincidently, this is what I asked of you (us) in my previous post!
Great minds truely do think alike!

So I say we can trump his response by doing what I propose before and showing how can we answer these problems with our new theory!

Let's you and I work on this question...

How does ID and Creationism specifically address and give a better, more cohesive, more "world friendly" explanation to your points 1 through 6?

I mean you did a GREAT job of doing a point by point deconstruction of current theory. Now let's do an EQUALLY great job of REPLACING the theory.

After all, I see a lot of "Science can't explain that" in your posts and I agree...
...but in order to convince others that we are right and they are wrong we need to show them that our theory is on par AND BETTER than what we have before; that's it's a viable replacement that anyone can agree to if they only "see" and "believe".