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.
Of course not. But I used the term "intelligent design" in exactly the same fashion they did in the article. The car (and the crops) were designed by intelligent men (and women).
I am not even sure you've read the article. It flies in the face of what "Intelligent design" means to everyone else but you.
Don't play ignorant. In a thread about creation vs. evolution, the term "intelligent design" isn't being discussed because of its relevance to crops or domestic and farm animals. Other than by you, that is.
"Intelligent Design" is a codeword for "Creationism", except the Creationists don't want the rest of us to realize it.
I like how ID proponents are all about redefining what ID originally was used for to suit their means, but the moment homosexuals bring up redefining marriage...
Yes perhaps you should read what HistorianDude writes on climate change.
You might learn something. But that's a different topic.
What are you talking about? What 'stuff that isn't allowed to be taught in school? What judge?
Can you explain what you even mean by the phrase "naturalistic fallacy"?
What 'evidence' are you referring to?
Why do you use the term 'evolutionists'. Do you also use the term "gravityists"?
Forgive me for using the wrong term, but I think you did know what I meant. It was obviously used to differentiate between creationists. Perhaps, I should have used a different term to differentiate the one from the other.
What evidence? Well, when I point out the fact that it's not all doom and gloom such as is the case that extremes are not increasing or some of the other extreme silliness that alarmists purport.
The naturalistic fallacy is when we assume what is natural is better or more healthy. In other words, natural climate change is good while man-made climate change is bad because what is natural is better. Instead of starting with a neutral opinion on the net effects of AGW, it is assumed the changes are all or almost all bad. This is largely why your good buddy David Suzuki has a problem with GMOs as well as climate change, in my opinion.
The stuff not allowed to be taught in schools would be statements from the Global Warming Bible such as, "that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls 'are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming'."
Has to be the strangest and most slender of straws anyone could grasp at! Surely he's just doing it for hyperbole.
It actually is the obvious next step in what I have always called "The Incredible Shrinking Creation Model." In the progressive effort to get past the US Supreme Court, American creationists have been trying to conceal the more obviously religious components of their beliefs for at least the last 50 years.
First they were simply good old fashioned "Biblical Creationists."
Then they shed the references to the Bible and pretended to be non-sectarian "Scientific Creationists."
When that didn't work, they pretended to shed any specific creator and became "Intelligent Design" advocates.
IC's pathetic tactic here is just the next step, one in which you pretend the only intelligent designer you're talking about are ordinarily human beings.
It is so pathetically stupid that any real ID advocate would probably slap her.
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.
