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 it. Quite a few people in this thread are conflating Creationism with ID. They're not the same thing. They're different. Even Ham states such.
Yes. Some are conflating ID with Creationism. They're not the same. They're different. Even Ham states such.
Remember the Dover trial? The "textbook" pushed by the IDers turned out to be a very sloppy search-and-replace job on a 100% creationist book - to the point where the word "creationist" - which should have been replaced with "design proponent" - somehow morphed into "cdesign proponentsist". An interesting bit of junk DNA, as it were.
If the creationists can't even keep that sort of sh.t straight, why do they even have a place at the table?
Oh, and Ham's definitions cut no ice with me. I can't tell whether he's deluded or a smart liar, but ID and creationism walks and quacks very much the same from where I'm sitting.
Hey, you're back! Care to take a swing at the falsification criteria for ID? Which possible hypothetical data set would you accept as killing off the hypothesis?
Blatantly false. There have been many nasty posts disagreeing quite vehemently.
Probably from people grown weary of your wall of noise. You never stayed on the topic! Like I said, everyone knows intelligent MEN (and women) designed those GMO crops, just like the intelligent men who designed my smartphone, my new car and my waterproof insulated jacket. That's not the "intelligent design" that that other thread was about. Can't you see that? Or are you just going to ruin this thread also by stubbornly clinging to a point that really has nothing to do with the subject? If so let us know now so we won't waste any more time clicking on it only to read gibberish.
Remember the Dover trial? The "textbook" pushed by the IDers turned out to be a very sloppy search-and-replace job on a 100% creationist book - to the point where the word "creationist" - which should have been replaced with "design proponent" - somehow morphed into "cdesign proponentsist".
In that specific case, yes. That was poorly done. Even Ham himself states ID is not Creationism. Conflating the two is intellectually dishonest. And ToE and ID aren't either/or. They coexist.
The erroneous conflation and false dichotomy are where so many of you go off track.
Probably from people grown weary of your wall of noise.
Perhaps they should have stopped posting their belligerent disagreements, then, when they knew damn well they couldn't refute the fact that GMO crops don't fit the ToE and DO fit exactly the definition of ID. Those nasty posts kept the discussion going. How do you not get that?
In case I haven't made it quite clear yet, I don't give a plugged nickel for what Ham states. Of course he's going to deny the link - it's been the goal of the ID movement all along, to cast off the stigma of full-on creationism, and come up with something sounds verrrrry scientific, right until you scratch through the veneer.
Creation requires God. ID does not name what the intelligence is in the design.
ID also does not assert that the universe and all living things were created. Another big difference.
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.
