(January 21, 2019 at 9:09 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.
That's fine M4X.
Though there seems to be a slight misunderstanding now between ourselves.
This thread, vast literary monument that it is, has CDF47 as its instigator.
It's CDF47's claims being touted, not mine.
My claims could be purple spotted Bottersnipes and they would have no bearing on how correct CDF47's claims are or aren't.
That's the point of contention M4X.
So, if you want to help CDF47 hold their end up M4X?
That'd be right grand and good neighborly of you.
I'll be content to let CDF47 answer the question of;
"What might/would it take to falsify Inteligent Design."
Cheers mate.
I figured it to be an open discussion. I can't say I always agree with CDF47, but I don't always disagree with him either. But the same is true for you. Sometimes you are spot on with things. It's just discussion. But in light of the bold claim you made, I was hoping something would be made available. If not, no prob. Not mad about it if it's not presented. Was just asking. Hopefully we are all just doing our best to listen to each other and learn what we can, when we can. If you have something valid, I'm not looking to shake my head at you and deny it. I would want to incorporate it into what I know already.
As far as ID claims, it's not something I go out of my way to state just because I think it can stray too much from "what is believed" to "what is assumed." I have no problem with the concept of creation, but when unknown variables are added it, then I would say I'm as equally as skeptical to believe or assert that they must be true. Kinda like the old game "Telephone." You start with the source, then the more you stray from it, the more you lose the authentic message.