ID is officially dead.

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, but he's at least entertaining and tricks people with their consent.

As opposed to science, who tried to get peoples' consent, but was blocked by the likes of Frances Kelsey? or the Deepwater Horizon, who did get the peoples' consent, before they literally struck oil?

Who got the peoples' consent to move a footbridge full of cracks and crevices, before gravity moved it perpendicular to its direction?

 

[Oneiric1975]

Lol, and all by pure accident, somehow. Might be tempted to say, "almost magically!"

....not really. It's like looking at a puddle of water and saying "Wow! How did the water know to take that shape and find a hole that just perfectly fit it?!?"

 

[VirOptimus]

As opposed to science, who tried to get peoples' consent, but was blocked by the likes of Frances Kelsey? or the Deepwater Horizon, who did get the peoples' consent, before they literally struck oil?

Science is not an entity, it is not an agent that tries to do anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that not how it works

Actually that's exactly what happens.

Science harps on cause-and-effect, especially as evidence of things they can't/couldn't see.

Until, of course, that cause-and-effect supports the Bible; then it's a different story.

Merry Christmas.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually that's exactly what happens.

Science harps on cause-and-effect, especially as evidence of things they can't/couldn't see.

Until, of course, that cause-and-effect supports the Bible; then it's a different story.

Merry Christmas.

No, you are (again) doing animism. "Science" dont do anything, its a method used by people.

Your trolling atempt is noted.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is not an entity, it is not an agent that tries to do anything.

Unless, of course, science does something really neat ... like landing a man on the moon ... then we hear about science making strides and breakthroughs and giving us this and giving us that and curing this and curing that and other anthropomorphic expressions.

 

[VirOptimus]

Unless, of course, science does something really neat ... like landing a man on the moon ... then we hear about science making strides and breakthroughs and giving us this and giving us that and curing this and curing that and other anthropomorphic expressions.

You wouldnt from me. Scientists may make a breakthrough using the scienctific method but science itself never do anything.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But if God made it that way, people like Stephen Hawking and every evolutionist shouldn't say he is not needed for evolution, something should be misaligned with that statement and God making things.

Scientists can't understand our minds, and evo without any ability at all, created us? think.

Stephen Hawking was a physicist, not an evolutionist.

 

[Job 33:6]

While I have my own personal beliefs of my own version of ID, what does anyone suppose the practical purpose of college ID courses would have been to begin with?

Was it to spur new scientific discoveries? Or was it a theological endeavor through and through?

...I just can't imagine anyone trying to get a job as a biologist or archeologist using some kind of degree in ID.

I think ID is just people taking advantage of a niche of interest.

Most Christians I think only like ID on the surface.

That God might orchestrate the creation of life sounds great on the surface. But the moment ID advocates begin supporting things like common descent, it falls short with many Christians. And otherwise, as many have said throughout the years, ID was more about being anti-evolution than it ever was about being pro-anything. And of course that won't go far given that the theory of evolution is really overwhelmingly well supported.

The idea that intellectuals could argue against science, it just never really could ever amount to much but fraud and book sales. At least ken ham doesn't even try to acknowledge science, so he doesn't have any trouble making his arguments. But ID advocates are in a much harder position because they actually try to use science to argue against itself. Which just isn't going to work for them. No more could a physicist argue against the theory of gravity could ID advocates argue against evolution using science.

But if anticipate more fraud and book sales to continue. There's too much money to be made for there not to be ID advocates. But just as it's been a fringe effort, it would likely remain so.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you are (again) doing animism. "Science" dont do anything, its a method used by people.

Well then here's an animistic post you can read.

Direct from Berkley Edu: What Has Science Done For You Lately?

Your trolling atempt is noted.

Aren't we supposed to "troll the ancient Yueltide carol"?

Thanks for the QED of yet another cause-and-effect: Christmas songs.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well then here's an animistic post you can read.

Direct from Berkley Edu:

-pointless trolling snipped-.

Yes, the scientific method has been a great tool in humanity making technological progress.

 

[AV1611VET]

You wouldnt from me. Scientists may make a breakthrough using the scienctific method but science itself never do anything.

So you want us to learn something that doesn't do anything? that makes sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, the scientific method has been a great tool in humanity making technological progress.

Yup -- one disaster at a time.

 

[VirOptimus]

So you want us to learn something that doesn't do anything? that makes sense.

Being deliberately obtuse is the same as trolling.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yup -- one disaster at a time.

Really? You want a life without technology?

 

[pitabread]

Its worse, its wrong science, evolution can't create conciousness and intelligence, biggest lie ever.
You need to know the world needs a excuse to discard God out of the creation process, they really need it, because they don't believe.

Ah yes, the inevitable equating of atheism and evolution, the last refuge of the desperate creationist argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What i need to learn that God didn't make things? thats a lie, i know God exists, also there is very well educated people that doesn't believe in evolution.
Atheists and their 'edgy' attacks... thinking they know.

Actually you only believe that God exists. If you knew you could support your claims. We know that life is the product of evolution. We can support that claim with evidence. Theists that claim to "know" do not tend to understand the meaning of that word, and they can never properly support their claims.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Being deliberately obtuse is the same as trolling.

I don't think it's helpful to demonize typical human behavior. We do our best to express our points, but we have to reject the frustration that occurs in not being able to convince others. IMO.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Actually you only believe that God exists. If you knew you could support your claims. We know that life is the product of evolution. We can support that claim with evidence. Theists that claim to "know" do not tend to understand the meaning of that word, and they can never properly support their claims.

I don't think it's necessary for everyone to be the same in regards to how they prioritize beliefs, and knowledge, as long as neither one promotes violence... IMO.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't think it's helpful to demonize typical human behavior. We do our best to express our points, but we have to reject the frustration that occurs in not being able to convince others. IMO.

You think trolling is good?