sci.energy.hydrogen

On Apr 6, 5:18=A0pm, "daestrom"
wrote:
> "OG" wrote in message
>
> news:65qhqlF2h5funU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "daestrom" wrote in message
> >news:47f79924$0$30687$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> >> "OG" wrote in message
> >>news:65p6hjF2h6jm1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>> "Gunner" wrote in message
> >>>news:61fev3t872pusern0h78niq5apt7bgh8c0@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:08:39 +1000, Terryc
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>> In the film, host Ben Stein tracks down
> >>>>>> scholars who have been "expelled" by the academic community for the=
ir
> >>>>>> support of intelligent design (ID), a research program that flies i=
n
> >>>>>> the face of Darwinism.
>
> >>>>>lol, there is no science in intelligent design,
>
> >>>> ''
> >>>> Your biased opinion is noted
>
> >>> So what disproof of ID is available?
>
> >> Ever try to prove a negative?
>
> >> Your question is a classic case of claiming, "Since you can't prove I'm=

> >> wrong, I must be right!!!"
>
> > No I'm not. What I am saying is that if you want to consider ID as a
> > scientific theory you have to accept the possibility that it is wrong, a=
nd
> > you have to provide a principle that would allow us to determine whether=

> > it is true or not.
>
> Okay, I see that I was wrong in interpreting your question. =A0I *assumed*=

> (and you know what that means), that you were asking for proof that ID is
> wrong in an attempt to show that it must be right because there is no proo=
f
> against it. =A0My mistake, sorry 'bout that.
>
> Quite frankly, I don't think there is any way to disprove ID, and so it is=

> not really a valid scientific theory. =A0If it isn't open to such disproof=
,
> then there is no point in admitting it to scientific knowledge.
>
> daestrom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

well, you could show examples of stupid design, thereby disporving the
"intelligent" part Lots of those.