[_ Old Earth _] UD

[reznwerks]

Unintelligent Design

Intelligent design is creation theory in drag. The same fundamentalists who push creation theory are the very same ones pushing intelligent design - so it is just a subversive way of trying implement creation theory.

You you cannot teach ID alongside a scientific subject like evolution, because ID can`t be scientifically or empirically proven. Sorrrrryyy!
Its also ridiculous to say "well for the sake of democracy and plurality of ideas, we should teach ID as an alternative". Thats nonsense - there are people who still believe the world is flat, so out of respect for plurality of ideas, should we be also teaching THAT in schools as an alternative to current scientific belief? Of course not.

 

[unred typo]

Unintelligent Design

Intelligent design is creation theory in drag. The same fundamentalists who push creation theory are the very same ones pushing intelligent design - so it is just a subversive way of trying implement creation theory.

You you cannot teach ID alongside a scientific subject like evolution, because ID can`t be scientifically or empirically proven. Sorrrrryyy!
Its also ridiculous to say "well for the sake of democracy and plurality of ideas, we should teach ID as an alternative". Thats nonsense - there are people who still believe the world is flat, so out of respect for plurality of ideas, should we be also teaching THAT in schools as an alternative to current scientific belief? Of course not.

If ID is Creation theory in drag, Evolution is naked Atheism, stripped of it’s final conclusion. The underlying force that fuels it’s propagation is the need to deny the existence of God.

We shouldn’t teach anything that can’t be proven, either by experiment, history or mathematical fact. Evolution should only be allowed in schools as Creationism is, as a special after school activity.

 

[army_of_juan]

Unintelligent Design

Intelligent design is creation theory in drag. The same fundamentalists who push creation theory are the very same ones pushing intelligent design - so it is just a subversive way of trying implement creation theory.

You you cannot teach ID alongside a scientific subject like evolution, because ID can`t be scientifically or empirically proven. Sorrrrryyy!
Its also ridiculous to say "well for the sake of democracy and plurality of ideas, we should teach ID as an alternative". Thats nonsense - there are people who still believe the world is flat, so out of respect for plurality of ideas, should we be also teaching THAT in schools as an alternative to current scientific belief? Of course not.

If ID is Creation theory in drag, Evolution is naked Atheism, stripped of it’s final conclusion. The underlying force that fuels it’s propagation is the need to deny the existence of God.

We shouldn’t teach anything that can’t be proven, either by experiment, history or mathematical fact. Evolution should only be allowed in schools as Creationism is, as a special after school activity.

ID is disguised creationism and is nothing more than an Argument from Ignorance. There's nothing to teach.

Evolution is a product of the scientific method since it has been observed and can be tested (regardless of what some uniformed people wish to believe). The majority of Christians worldwide (this YEC nonsense is mostly a US problem) accept evolution so saying it represents atheistism is incorrect.

 

[reznwerks]

[

We shouldn’t teach anything that can’t be proven, either by experiment, history or mathematical fact. quote]

Now if we could only get you to follow your own advice.LOL

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Now if we could only get you to follow your own advice.LOL

You wish I would quit so you could spread your atheistic propaganda a little more unchallenged. :-D Actually you are misquoting me. You know we were talking about teaching in state funded schools where, no, we shouldn’t teach anything that can’t be proven, either by experiment, history or mathematical fact. Evolution should only be allowed in schools as Creationism is, as a special after school activity.

 

[army_of_juan]

Reznwerks wrote:

Now if we could only get you to follow your own advice.LOL

You wish I would quit so you could spread your atheistic propaganda a little more unchallenged. :-D Actually you are misquoting me. You know we were talking about teaching in state funded schools where, no, we shouldn’t teach anything that can’t be proven, either by experiment, history or mathematical fact. Evolution should only be allowed in schools as Creationism is, as a special after school activity.

You don't seem to understand that evolution is testable and that many industries apply the principles of evolution in their work. Evolution is as close to fact as we got which is one reason it's was approved for schools in the first place. Evolution has been observed which that by itself should be enough "proof" for anyone.

Also, atheistic propaganda? We are not discussing religion, we're talking about science.

 

[Solo]

Origin of Life
In a modern context, the Bible shows Bible scientific foreknowledge regarding the origin of life which it states was a miracle. Abiogenesis, the hypothesis that life occured naturally is completely foundering. Lee Strobel in his book A Case for Faith quotes William Bradley as stating the following, "The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 International Conference on Origin of Life was described as grim-full of frustration, pessimism and desperation."

Nobel prize winning Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA), in his 1981 book Life Itself, insists that the probability of life's chance origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, says:

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

Stephen B. Meyer in his essay, DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information shows why the naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are entirely bankrupt. http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html There are simply to many obstacles to overcome for the abiogenesis hypothesis and the information contained in biological organisms speaks of a intelligent designer.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... origin.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Ar ... ergman.asp

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Unred is becoming more nuts, how'd that happen?

Evolution is a thoroughly tested and understood theory. It's like saying that the theory of relativity is unproven. It's true, they aren't, they like the rest of inductively demonstrated reality are impossible to prove. However the basic tenets of evolution are as rock solid as the 'laws' of motion.

 

[Solo]

The theory of relativity could be unproven as recent scientific observations have found that the speed of light may not be constant.

 

[reznwerks]

huh

Reznwerks wrote:

Now if we could only get you to follow your own advice.LOL

You wish I would quit so you could spread your atheistic propaganda a little more unchallenged. :-D Actually you are misquoting me. quote]
That is the amazing thing about the quote function. It quotes what the writer wrote.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The theory of relativity could be unproven as recent scientific observations have found that the speed of light may not be constant.

Wow, someone didn't parse my meaning, someone lonely. c is constant in a vacuum, you heard it from the physics student's mouth. What little tidbit of scientific news you've got between your teeth is actually an attempt to qualify inflation physics in support of the Big Bang.

 

[Solo]

The theory of relativity could be unproven as recent scientific observations have found that the speed of light may not be constant.

Wow, someone didn't parse my meaning, someone lonely. c is constant in a vacuum, you heard it from the physics student's mouth. What little tidbit of scientific news you've got between your teeth is actually an attempt to qualify inflation physics in support of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is a farce as well. Your physics is book learned. Keep up with the author of creation and you will learn something that is actual.