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.
Trying to claim that god created everything thru science
'Created everything thru science'? I think you must be misquoting something. I've never heard anyone make a statement like that. What does it mean? Science is not a physical tool that God would pick up and manipulate like a fork, or knife or club. It's a body of knowledge. Can you provide a source where a well known ID organization says 'God created thru science'?
Intelligent Design is a theosophical excersise developed by the ancient Greek philosophers.
It was recently dusted off and "adjusted" by the theocratic crowd in an attempt to overstep the Establishment Clause and SCOTUS rulings keeping religious dogma out of public school cirriculum. It attempts to put a "science" label on Creationism so that it could be taught next to, or more accuratly instead of, Evolution by attempting to eliminate "God" from the equation. This is, of course, laughable. A christian speaking of any force capable of ID would of course be speaking of their very own so-called Creator Deity.
Of course, it is a lame attempt. No intelligent person buys it, and it has lost in all major court cases attempting to force it into public school cirriculum. It is not science and barely could be called even a pseudoscience, and ranks right up (or down) there with the BS coming from the Young Earther's camp.
Now, the same crowd is attempting to force stickers on books claiming that Evolution is an unproven theory. In other words, since they cannot have their religion taught directly, they attempt to have science diluted.
Intelligent Design is simply an insult to each and every intelligent person on the planet.
Does anyone besides me, ever notice the silliness of religion?
About half the people here say that, loudly and proudly.
The science fiction sites I go to are a bit less like that, somewhat to my surprise. They think religion is silly too, but I think they have a better appreciation for literature and symbolism. They also get less Fundamentalists though.
Intelligent Design is a theosophical excersise developed by the ancient Greek philosophers.
Theosophy apparently originated somewhere in the early 19th century. However, Greek philosophers were intrigued by what they reasoned as apparent observable intentional design characteristics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
It was recently dusted off and "adjusted" by the theocratic crowd in an attempt to overstep the Establishment Clause and SCOTUS rulings keeping religious dogma out of public school cirriculum.
Why don't you go ahead and define for us precisely what the "Establishment Clause" is.
Please school us on the concept of stare decisis and how this would all square with the SCOTUS Trinity and Dredd Scott decisions.
Concerning religious dogma, your post would appear to be a prime example of the 'pot calling the kettle black.' Your personal dogma is coming through loud and clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
It attempts to put a "science" label on Creationism so that it could be taught next to, or more accuratly instead of, Evolution by attempting to eliminate "God" from the equation. This is, of course, laughable. A christian speaking of any force capable of ID would of course be speaking of their very own so-called Creator Deity.
As far as I am aware, Evolution is nothing more than theory. Are not all theories created equal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
Of course, it is a lame attempt. No intelligent person buys it, and it has lost in all major court cases attempting to force it into public school cirriculum. It is not science and barely could be called even a pseudoscience, and ranks right up (or down) there with the BS coming from the Young Earther's camp.
Nothing dogmatic about this statement. You would of course be able to provide scientific empirical evidence to utterly smash the notion of intelligent design. We're all waiting on the edge of our seats in anticipation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
Now, the same crowd is attempting to force stickers on books claiming that Evolution is an unproven theory. In other words, since they cannot have their religion taught directly, they attempt to have science diluted.
I take it then, that you have empirical proof that Macro-Evolution is the de facto explanation for the existence of humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
Intelligent Design is simply an insult to each and every intelligent person on the planet.
Nothing more here than your personal dogmatic (after decrying "religious dogma") opinion. Others would opine that our existence is due to space aliens. I don't find your opinion here to be any more or less compelling than anyone else's.
Theosophy apparently originated somewhere in the early 19th century. However, Greek philosophers were intrigued by what they reasoned as apparent observable intentional design characteristics.
Why don't you go ahead and define for us precisely what the "Establishment Clause" is.
Please school us on the concept of stare decisis and how this would all square with the SCOTUS Trinity and Dredd Scott decisions.
Concerning religious dogma, your post would appear to be a prime example of the 'pot calling the kettle black.' Your personal dogma is coming through loud and clear.
As far as I am aware, Evolution is nothing more than theory. Are not all theories created equal?
Nothing dogmatic about this statement. You would of course be able to provide scientific empirical evidence to utterly smash the notion of intelligent design. We're all waiting on the edge of our seats in anticipation.
I take it then, that you have empirical proof that Macro-Evolution is the de facto explanation for the existence of humans.
Nothing more here than your personal dogmatic (after decrying "religious dogma") opinion. Others would opine that our existence is due to space aliens. I don't find your opinion here to be any more or less compelling than anyone else's.
Although I learned the origins of ID in high school, wiki has an entry on the origins of ID. Educate yourself.
This entry from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, first published in 1836, will quite effectively outline the Establishment Clause, as well as the intillectually dishonesty inherent in our Courts (except the Ninth Circut, which ruled out Motto and Peldge illegal in 2002)... 4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
My "religious dogma"? Let me guess. You are going to innaccuratly going to label me one of those "godless" liberals and/or an Athieists merely becasue I support our original Motto and Pledge and Constitutional Principles.
And perhaps you should first expand your awareness and realize that Evolution is a recognized fact among the legitimate scientific community (as opposed to YEC/Creationist pseudoscientists), and perhaps do yourself a favor and resarch the term "scientific theory".
And your continued near psychotic fixation of applying "religious dogma" where it doesn;t belong is perfectly indicative of your stance on this issue. Linked below is Professor Ken Miller, a practicing Catholic, as he illustrates how he dismantled ID for the courts in Dover vs Board of Ed. He will explain it succintly and in detail. An informative video that explains such things as transitory species and the clear fabrications and dishonesty Creationists & Intelligent Design proponents must engage in to further their actual relgiious dogma...
Although I learned the origins of ID in high school, wiki has an entry on the origins of ID. Educate yourself.
wiki? Are you kidding? wiki?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
This entry from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, first published in 1836, will quite effectively outline the Establishment Clause, as well as the intillectually dishonesty inherent in our Courts (except the Ninth Circut, which ruled out Motto and Peldge illegal in 2002)... 4. To found, recognize, confirm or admit; as, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Very good. Now what does "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" have to do with various theoretical concepts of life origins being taught/discussed in public schools?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
My "religious dogma"? Let me guess. You are going to innaccuratly going to label me one of those "godless" liberals and/or an Athieists merely becasue I support our original Motto and Pledge and Constitutional Principles.
Inaccurate labeling would seem to be your modus operandi. I didn't label you as "religiously" dogmatic - simply dogmatic. As far as "godless" liberal/Atheist, you would certainly appear to be in the same corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
And perhaps you should first expand your awareness and realize that Evolution is a recognized fact among the legitimate scientific community (as opposed to YEC/Creationist pseudoscientists), and perhaps do yourself a favor and resarch the term "scientific theory".
I didn't ask what the popular consensus is, I asked for your scientific empirical evidence.
So, according to you, there apparently is no such thing as an Atheistic/Agnostic pseudo-scientist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
And your continued near psychotic fixation of applying "religious dogma" where it doesn;t belong is perfectly indicative of your stance on this issue.
A "psychotic fixation of applying 'religious dogma' where it doesn't belong?"
I get the impression that you're a real 'tiggie' fan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
Linked below is Professor Ken Miller, a practicing Catholic, as he illustrates how he dismantled ID for the courts in Dover vs Board of Ed. He will explain it succintly and in detail. An informative video that explains such things as transitory species and the clear fabrications and dishonesty Creationists & Intelligent Design proponents must engage in to further their actual relgiious dogma...
Am I supposed to be impressed because Miller is a "practicing Catholic?"
You're a big boy, why not make your own arguments. People such as Miller are a 'dime a dozen.'
BTW, you neglected to respond to my point about the SCOTUS Trinity and Dredd Scott stare decisis issue. No doubt an honest mistake.
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.
