Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you have no logical response, attack their intellectual ability. Well done.
What intellectual ability?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Sigh... I've already stated multiple times that ID is NOT Creationism. It does NOT assert that the universe and all living things were created.
tl;dr on your "multiple times".
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The Theory of Evolution and ID coexist. There is evidence of both, and neither has a complete record.
If the mere concept that humans can genetically modify things does "not fit the Theory of Evolution", then the mere concept of the platypus does not fit Intelligent Design.
Either that, or the platypus is the DeviantArt stage of said Designer.
You're still stuck in the either/or false dichotomy.
You actually have no idea what I think in regards to the theory of evolution and/or ID and/or creationism. All you saw was one post disagreeing with one sentence and assume I don't agree with anything you've said or didn't say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
They're not about intellectual debate. They're about throwing temper tantrums because they cannot grasp the concepts.
Here's the problem with making up a new definition of Intelligent Design (I.e.: Something that we can prove had a designer, like GMO crops)
The definition is all well and good (yet still completely made up and not at all what the current movement for Intelligent Design is about). But it still falls under scientific rules. GMO crops? Mules? Other things that we can empirically prove had intelligent intervention? Yes. We can technically call that "Intelligent Design".
As an alternative to evolution though? Which is what Intelligent Design was (lol) created to be?
It still fails. There is absolutely zero proof of an intelligent designer when it comes to most species out there. We cannot prove that humans were originally "intelligently designed", but we can empirically prove that they evolved. Same with pretty much everything out there.
In that matter, evolution has empirical proof and is scientific. Intelligent design as a means to explaining "how we got here", however, is not scientific. Therefore, it does not belong in the science classroom.
Really? It's easy to tell from your post in this thread that you're still stuck in the either/or false dichotomy:
When in the real world, it's easy to tell from your parroting that you read a big word and are now using it everywhere incorrectly. Because, if you can't comprehend, the concept that certain mutations/evolutionary traits are done by design and that some could potentially be caused by natural forces is pretty much agreed upon by most intellectuals.
Buuuut, if you'd like to present how you come to the conclusion that this ideal is a false dilemma, please feel free to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've already stated multiple times that ID is NOT Creationism. It does NOT assert that the universe and all living things were created.
