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 have been silently following this thread, mostly for purposes of amusement. Here's what gets me; Scientists write peer-reviewed work. The result are theories based on solid, unflappable evidence and other criteria. There is the Germ Theory, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Gravity, and of course the Theory of Evolution, all have been backed by repeated observation and experimentation. Now, some clowns (and I use the term "clowns" with all due respect) comes along and because one or more of these theories doesn't jive with his version of religion, he rejects the theory. If all that were not enough, the absurdity of the thread goes on for 625 posts, and counting. And in conclusion, I am no better since I have just contributed to it, albeit reluctantly, and tongue-in-cheek.
It only goes to show you just how strong religious indoctrination can be.
Not all religious people are this way, of course. But some people will believe in the weirdest things in spite of all the evidence to the contrary that shows that they are unfounded beliefs.
Unfortunately, I come across too many of these people.
Intelligent design is not science...and I don't remember if anybody in this thread said it was. But to parrot myself...I think concepts of ID should be discussed. There is a need for philosophy. It gives the framework or parameters by which science is applied.
Intelligent design is not science...and I don't remember if anybody in this thread said it was. But to parrot myself...I think concepts of ID should be discussed. There is a need for philosophy. It gives the framework or parameters by which science is applied.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
Intelligent design is not science...and I don't remember if anybody in this thread said it was. But to parrot myself...I think concepts of ID should be discussed. There is a need for philosophy. It gives the framework or parameters by which science is applied.
It belongs in the same class as Mother Goose, Grimm's fairy tales and Aesop's fables.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
Then string theory too? It has zero evidence...but widespread support. So...mother goose?
You don't understand how science advances a theory do you? Your ignorance to that is demonstrated by suggesting zero evidence of string theory applications. I'm using the term ignorance as in not knowing as opposed to the insult.
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz Intelligent design is not science...and I don't remember if anybody in this thread said it was. But to parrot myself...I think concepts of ID should be discussed. There is a need for philosophy. It gives the framework or parameters by which science is applied.
Why? Teaching magic doesn't belong in schools. Unless it's Montreal's Ecole Nationale de Cirque.
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.
