malf
Member
It's you're, not your. You used the form improperly.
Actually, what is and what is not a scientific claim is very clearly defined. As I can tell you're not well versed in these matters, let me elaborate.
Scientific claims are claims that which can be studied scientifically. ' For instance, what causes the sky to be blue? ' is a legitimate scientific inquiry. It's asking a question about nature that can be studied scientifically.
What if I wanted to study whether or not sentient bunnies who are invisible and don't interact with the physical world come to my room every night and tickle my cat before disappearing into another dimension? There doesn't seem to be a reliable scientific test we can do on that hypothesis. Thus, any inquiry would not be scientific.
You seem to not be able to differentiate between me saying that ID is a legitimate scientific question, and me saying that ID is legitimately proven scientifically. We can probably write this off as you merely thinking in terms of black and white, which is kind of ironic.
OK. Let's make this a little easier for both of us by introducing some clarity. I don't want to be accused of misinterpreting anything you say as you seem to get upset very easily. Before we know it you'll be resorting to larger, bolder fonts and, god help us, colours.
Remember, it was you that mentioned lack of evidence for ID. Perhaps you could present the evidence that underpins your support of ID. We can then examine if and how any 'legitimate scientific inquiry' could be applied, its "worthiness", and whether your claim (ID) has more legitimacy to further study than your bunnies example.
You are clearly aware of my inadequacies, help me out here.