I retract what I've written below. I've subsequently been corrected by Larni who pointed out a double negative I'd missed. In the interest of accuracy, I'm leaving my faux pas uncorrected. Maybe it might even serve a purpose in demonstrating why it is so difficult to understand what Dawn is trying to say.
The whole point of this discussion with you was to tackle your claim that ID should be taught in the science classroom. You have made post after post trying to explain why it is science, using your ToL,O&P as evidence of it's validity as science. You've claimed that yourToL,O&P is a scientific theory. After all these posts, we're none the wiser as to what you're actually saying when you use your ToL,O&P.
However, your post, numbered 300 in this thread, finally contains a statement from you that has something of substance to it. It's a single sentence and it is as clear as a bell. You have stated
Dawn Bertot writes:
Therefore the ToLO&P cannot be not classified as science because it does not involve the principle of Falsifiabilty.
These are your own words, lifted straight from your post, not a quote from someone else that you used. They're your own, actual words, typed by your own fingers to explain what you're saying. I've not pulled a fast one, I haven't misquoted you, I copied and pasted your words into the quote box.
Do you see your problem? Why the hell should we teach anything to do with your ToL,O&P in the science classroom when you have finally admitted it ISN'T science? You've spent post after confusing post trying to explain why it IS science, only to come up with that little gem above. I have to ask. Do you actually know what you're trying to say? If you've managed to utterly confuse yourself with all your nonsensical writings, join the club.
To summarise your voluminous posts, you've stated that ID should be taught in science class, you've claimed that your ToL,O&P is scientific, that ID is science, you've claimed that your ToL,O&P is scientific evidence for ID and after all that you come out with your statement, which bears repeating
Dawn Bertot writes:
Therefore the ToLO&P cannot be not classified as science because it does not involve the principle of Falsifiabilty.
Just incase you've missed it
Dawn Bertot writes:
Therefore the ToLO&P cannot be not classified as science because it does not involve the principle of Falsifiabilty.
Edited by Trixie, : To write retraction.