Originally Posted by void *
None of those actually rise to the level of theory, as the term is actually used in science (as opposed to the 'well it's just a theory' usage which, while is actually a valid definition, is *not* the definition in use when talking of a 'scientific theory').
And you are, unsurprisingly, yet again avoiding the point, and are off somewhere pretending that we were talking about something else all along.
You claimed that I was somehow using the same logic myself that the DI people are using when they try to have it both ways. Or something along those lines, you weren't necessarily making a whole lot of sense to me at the time.
Given that I am not in fact using the same logic (I am not in fact contradicting myself in the way they are), are you going to continue to claim things like
When I neither made such an argument, nor hold the same contradictory position as the Discovery Institute people are holding?
Or can you simply admit that the Discovery Institute people are contradicting themselves as to whether or not ID is religious, given that they have supported different lawsuits that require it be treated as such in one lawsuit, and *not* treated as such in another?
You are changing the subject again. If I am going to be held to the arguments of theists, as an agnostic, you are supposed to be agreeing that atheism is a religion.
You're either being obtuse, or are really oblivious to the logical fallacy you are attempting.