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.
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.
And yet another angry belligerent response from still another C-D member who disingenuously conflates Creationism with ID when the two are notably different, and cannot dispute the fact that GMO crops are currently living evidence of ID.
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?
Evolution is an unproveable fanciful speculation. Unproveable.
And yet another angry belligerent response from still another C-D member who disingenuously conflates Creationism with ID when the two are notably different
Sure they are. The Wedge Document was leaked back in 1994, for Cripes' sake.
Quote:
and cannot dispute the fact that GMO crops are currently living evidence of ID.
You seem to think you're somehow scoring points with that utterly banal statement of fact. I can't dispute the fact that iron bars are evidence of mining, but that's not an argument against geological theories on how iron deposits are formed.
If you're willing to present falsification criteria (positive evidence that would make you dismiss the hypothesis) for ID in nature, you may have a hypothesis that's worth discussing as some sort of natural science. And if you can do that, you'll be the first I've encountered.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,480,204 times
Reputation: 12187
Science simply pushes back the frontier of ignorance. Religion holds to unchanging "truths" regardless of what evidence says. When evidence supports a religion's "truth" it is used to prove the religion is right, while at the same time any evidence that contradicts religion is thrown out the window.
Example: Christians touting archaeological discovery of a collapsed wall at Jericho while at the same time dismissing evidence that Jerusalem was a tiny settlement until well after the time of David and Solomon's "empire or the lack of evidence of any mass migration through the Sinai desert.
Your claim is that ID proponents are "Creationists" even though they don't assert that the universe and all living things were created, and don't name a "creator?"
Same mentality as the "If you don't like Obama, you're a racist" crowd.
Your claim is that ID proponents are "Creationists" even though they don't assert that the universe and all living things were created, and don't name a "creator?"
Designer, creator - potato, potahto, as far as I'm concerned. We know that the Discovery Institute fomulated the wedge document around the idea of pushing creationism (yes, really) back into the scientific debate and get a science based on "Christian and theistic convictions". They wrote that themselves.
And we know Ken Ham hates them because they only whisper what he at least says out loud: God did it.
Anyway - falsification criteria for ID? Are you up for it, now that Bideshi apparently isn't?
Designer, creator - potato, potahto, as far as I'm concerned. We know that the Discovery Institute fomulated the wedge document around the idea of pushing creationism (yes, really) back into the scientific debate and get a science based on "Christian and theistic convictions". They wrote that themselves.
And Obama admitted his spiritual mentor of over 20 years was what we now know is a racist minister. So, according to your logic, that makes Obama racist, as well.
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.
