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.
It's called theology. You can't separate your Christianity from anything you believe, do or say. NOTHING!!! It flies in the face of the world.
What you can and can't fathom really isn't my concern. I simply pointed out what evolution actually was to clear up any misunderstanding.
Again this thread isn't about evolution. Its about ID and whether it is a pseudoscience. ID is a pseudoscience. In no way does that comment speak to anybody's beliefs or their faith (or their theology). It simply states that ID doesn't follow a scientific method.
I understand that you and others need everything in its proper place. You need to see a round ball (science) fit into a square hole (God). Honestly to me that just shows a lack of faith on your part.
Even though this is not a debate between ID and evolution, I am glad that you brought that up, which brings up a good point. Abiogenesis, I believe, is not a scientific theory, but a hypothesis. As a science, abiogenesis definately carries less weight than the theory of evolution.
A good question is, for those who consider ID a pseudoscience, do you see abiogenesis on par with ID? Since, the premise of abiogenesis is definately not observable.
Again, so what do people think? Is abiogenesis on par with ID? Just curious.
Regrettably . . . ID has been inextricably connected with Creationism via the court case and the proof that the Discovery Institute was merely using it as a sham to get Creationism into the science curriculum. However, the GENERIC concept of a creator and a design to the physical and spiritual evolution of humankind cannot be disputed or dismissed by science. Everything that is used to support evolution is equally applicable to the GENERIC idea of a creator and design behind it that simply is mired in our ignorance (and our use of jargon to make that ignorance seem scientific). I have repeatedly made this clear in other threads . . . to no avail as far as the "scientific fundamentalists" are concerned.
What do you mean is abiogenesis on par with ID? Abiogenesis (i think) is simply a hypothesis. Truth is nobody knows from a scientific standpoint how all this came to be.
What do you mean is abiogenesis on par with ID? Abiogenesis (i think) is simply a hypothesis. Truth is nobody knows from a scientific standpoint how all this came to be.
I feel that ID is divisive because of its origins. ID is an idea which was derived from creationists.
From what i gather watching the youtube video from you, there is no doubt that many creationists atttempted to promote creation as a science. And with good reason, failed miserably. An account of Genesis, is clearly not science.
However...
Though ID was spawned by some creationists...
Though some of these creationists' intensions may have been to inflitrate science with an idea that promotes God...
Maybe, they did create something that has evolved (pun ) into something that is at least like, abiogenesis. A scientific hypothesis, that attempts to explain our origins.
Bigthirsty, you are right. There is nobody that one can know from science how everything came about. Because abiogenesis and ID are unascertainable, they will always be considered less than prime sciences. However, that does not make the ideas (ID and abiogenesis), quackery.
The youtube video link... that is clearly quackery.
I feel that ID is divisive because of its origins. ID is an idea which was derived from creationists.
From what i gather watching the youtube video from you, there is no doubt that many creationists atttempted to promote creation as a science. And with good reason, failed miserably. An account of Genesis, is clearly not science.
However...
Though ID was spawned by some creationists...
Though some of these creationists' intensions may have been to inflitrate science with an idea that promotes God...
Maybe, they did create something that has evolved (pun ) into something that is at least like, abiogenesis. A scientific hypothesis, that attempts to explain our origins.
Bigthirsty, you are right. There is nobody that one can know from science how everything came about. Because abiogenesis and ID are unascertainable, they will always be considered less than prime sciences. However, that does not make the ideas (ID and abiogenesis), quackery.
The youtube video link... that is clearly quackery.
I'm not sure the idea of "creation" is quackery. Trying to teach it as science in classrooms is.
I'm not sure the idea of "creation" is quackery. Trying to teach it as science in classrooms is.
Yes, I was trying to imply that. Creationism is impossible to apply in science, because it uses the bible, which is a supernatural/religious explanation. However, ID is not creationism. Creationism is a Christian explaination to our origins. ID is not inclusive to only Chrisitans.
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.
) into something that is at least like, abiogenesis. A scientific hypothesis, that attempts to explain our origins. 
