Buy:Human Growth Hormone.Prednisolone.Valtrex.100% Pure Okinawan Coral Calcium.Prevacid.Zovirax.Lumigan.Actos.Arimidex.Synthroid.Retin-A.Zyban.Mega Hoodia.Petcam (Metacam) Oral Suspension.Nexium.Accutane….

Buy:Lumigan.Petcam (Metacam) Oral Suspension.Zovirax.Retin-A.Prevacid.Synthroid.Accutane.Valtrex.Nexium.Actos.Human Growth Hormone.Mega Hoodia.100% Pure Okinawan Coral Calcium.Arimidex.Prednisolone.Zyban….

Buy:Benicar.Ventolin.Buspar.Seroquel.Zetia.Acomplia.Zocor.Nymphomax.SleepWell.Advair.Lipothin.Amoxicillin.Wellbutrin SR.Prozac.Lipitor.Cozaar.Female Cialis.Female Pink Viagra.Lasix.Aricept….

The comments I made earlier were directed more towards your ideas that “Neither [NS nor ID]… is provable, disprovable, or even testable…it is impossible to do so.” And that scientists seem to accept this as an undeniable truth even though it cannot be proven. I assume, as has always been the case with you, that a bit of debate is, in fact, welcome. But perhaps I misread you, in which case I will gladly shut it’!

If I understand you correctly, the main idea was that “science, (in general) … no longer give[s] the same scrutiny to theories that they used to.” And that evolution is an idea held by scientific community to be irrefutable. …As for the first part, I must say that I have found quite the opposite to be true, now more than ever scientists are challenging old ideas. For example, somewhere between middle school and college they rearranged the entire kingdoms of life and made it a subset of another group. Changes like this are happening all the time. As for evolution being the favorite “darling” of science, you yourself said that evolution has been “revamped” countless time as new evidence has come to light. If anything, that suggests that the scientific community is open to change if there is evidence to support it. While I agree that it is foolish for a scientist to accept an improvable theory as an absolute truth, using the theories backed by the most evidence to further science is in fact good science.

Science may assume many things that happen to be right in the end, but they only learn that they are right, or wrong, when they are challenged. Science is not allowing this challenge to occur… and thus they will either stagnate or kowtow to the reality that their own arguments against the challenging thought also damn the defended theory.

A good scientist has no room for darlings, and must have progress in truth as his first priority, not an ideal, a tradition to uphold, or funding to vindicate. If this is not so, then the raw results will be tailored to match the agenda, and not the reverse.

Perhaps by even responding I am falling into one of your expertly crafted traps, but where you start to lose me is when you make the jump from it can’t be tested to 100% satisfaction to it can’t be tested at all. It’s tested all the time, and in virtually every case, natural selection fits. You can claim that not every aspect can be controlled, and that, according to quantum physics, simply observing an experiment will leave some taint on the results. And you would be, at least, partially correct. But remember that those same laws of physics are equally disprovable and subject to the same scrutiny. Following this logic we unavoidably end up discovering that just about everything we think we know is just a bunch of made up assumptions that happen to be right an inordinately high percentage of the time.

I, for one, am willing to make the leap and accept most of these things as true, until I have reason to believe otherwise. In fact, it’s that leap that has allowed us to venture into space, build skyscrapers, and grow fat off the land… …honestly, who wants to give that up? The difference between NS and ID is not that intelligent design is impossible, just impossible to test… …at all. Or, at least, that “god” seems an unwilling, yet necessary, participant in these tests. For some reason people pit them together as if one disproved the other but again nothing about NS discredits the idea of intelligent design, at the very most just the methods. Imagine if bacteria in a laboratory petri dish were capable of intelligent thought, would they conclude they got there as a result of ID or NS? In their case both would be correct. As science stumbles its way into these ‘assumptions that happen to be right an inordinately high percentage of the time’ we may gain some insight into what intelligent design actually means

Need I say more?