Intelligent Design Is Only Theorized

[AV1611VET]

LOL

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Here we are? This surprising figure of speech, which gives intelligence and a voice to the lightnings, expresses with great sublimity the punctuality with which inanimate creatures observe the laws prescribed to them, and perform the service enjoined them by their Creator.

Here we are--at thy disposal.

 

[bhsmte]

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?[quote=British Family Bible]Here we are? This surprising figure of speech, which gives intelligence and a voice to the lightnings, expresses with great sublimity the punctuality with which inanimate creatures observe the laws prescribed to them, and perform the service enjoined them by their Creator.

[/QUOTE]

Cool.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL

Cool.

Is this your idea of 'we can go from there'?

 

[bhsmte]

Is this your idea of 'we can go from there'?

That is my idea of the most appropriate response to the content of your posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is my idea of the most appropriate response to the content of your posts.

Perhaps you have a better way of stating Job 38:35?

How would you have it written?

 

[KWCrazy]

.... is found in the initials of the thread title.

IDIOT. I wonder what those letters have to do with anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

IDIOT. I wonder what those letters have to do with anything.

 

[KWCrazy]

Intelligent Design: a belief which attempts to compromise the conflicting accounts of the creation of living things between the Scriptures and evolution. With two accounts diametrically opposed to each other, one can be wrong or both can be wrong but both cannot be right. By taking the position that both right, ID disqualifies itself as a serious alternative. No verses of Scripture support ID, and no findings of science support it either.

 

[bhsmte]

Intelligent Design: a belief which attempts to compromise the conflicting accounts of the creation of living things between the Scriptures and evolution. With two accounts diametrically opposed to each other, one can be wrong or both can be wrong but both cannot be right. By taking the position that both right, ID disqualifies itself as a serious alternative. No verses of Scripture support ID, and no findings of science support it either.

Since when did you care if science findings supported something?

 

[Speedwell]

Intelligent Design: a belief which attempts to compromise the conflicting accounts of the creation of living things between the Scriptures and evolution. With two accounts diametrically opposed to each other, one can be wrong or both can be wrong but both cannot be right. By taking the position that both right, ID disqualifies itself as a serious alternative. No verses of Scripture support ID, and no findings of science support it either.

You shouldn't be so scathing. ID was invented specifically to "soften up" atheists for the kind of biblical creationism you put so much stock in.

 

[AV1611VET]

You shouldn't be so scathing. ID was invented specifically to "soften up" atheists for the kind of biblical creationism you put so much stock in.

Yup.

 

[Vaccine]

It is not a theory. It doesn't meet the scientific criteria for being a theory (see post #3). At best it is an hypothesis. Makes more sense to who?



Are largely based on wishful thinking. Its originators harbored the dream of using it as a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism so they could impose it on the unwilling.

A judge rules on the law. A theory is defined by an objective standard. People like Ken Miller understand it qualifies as a theory and attempt to falsify it. They plainly state they don't want it taught in schools, or any unwilling people because that politicizes it. They want the discussions kept in the scientific community.
There's a scene in Troy where Hector and Achilles are fighting, Hector trips on a rock. Achilles says, "Get up! I'll not have a rock steal my glory!". Meaning he want's to face his opponent on fair ground and best him so people can't say he won because Hector tripped.
When you employ tactics like saying they want to impose it on unwilling, appealing to a judge to say it isn't science, and mischarachterizing it as creationism you're relying on that rock to declare victory. Why not face it on a level playing field and try and discredit it on scientific grounds? I give kodos to Ken Miller for at least trying.

 

[Vaccine]

.... is found in the initials of the thread title.

Idiot. Clever. Do you mean those who proposed it or those that don't like the implications?

 

[AV1611VET]

Idiot. Clever. Do you mean those who proposed it or those that don't like the implications?

Primarily those who proposed it.

Secondarily those who believe it.

Intelligent Design is Satan's cheap imitation for Creationism.

We call that diabolical plagiarism.

 

[AirPo]

Discuss please.

Actually, it's just a scam.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, it's just a scam.

I wouldn't call it a "scam" per se.

I would call it a desperate attempt to sneak Creationism back into the halls of academia.

And they're getting pwned by science ... as they should.

They need to learn from Nadab & Abihu's mistake, don't they?

 

[AirPo]

You mean like LSD or mustard gas?

You use LSD and mustard gas a daily basis? That explains a lot.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Isn't it ironic that it is mainly scientists that marvel at the way nature functions. The rest of us dufuses just take it for granted.

 

[AirPo]

Yup.

In other words, a scam.

 

[AV1611VET]

You use LSD and mustard gas a daily basis? That explains a lot.

Hitler used mustard gas daily for awhile.

Timothy Leary justified LSD with science.