Intelligent Design Is Only Theorized

[AV1611VET]

Creationism + Discovery Institute + pseudoscientific buzzwords + political agenda - a shred of honesty or integrity = Intelligent Design

Do you build Rube Goldberg machines as a hobby?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you build Rube Goldberg machines as a hobby?

No, I decipher them.

Perhaps if you did, you wouldn't settle for the easy answers.

 

[AirPo]

No, I decipher them.

Perhaps if you did, you wouldn't settle for the easy answers.

Assuming someone is actually looking for answers.

 

[Vaccine]

No, it says that is the case for some, not all. And it refutes nothing. Your inability to understand an article does not mean that it refutes a concept.

So you do understand it IS the case for some, yet you say I don't understand the article. So you're saying I both understand and don't understand the article. How about you address the issues not the person? If you understand it so well it would be a simple matter to show me not tell me I'm wrong.

 

[HitchSlap]

There are two ways to look at this:

1. Creationism + Science = Intelligent Design

2. Creationism - Faith = Intelligent Design

Creationism + Fatih = pseudoscience

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism + Fatih = pseudoscience

Plutoing "Intelligent Design" to "pseudoscience," now are you?

Trying to get Intelligent Design off the hook?

 

[HitchSlap]

Plutoing "Intelligent Design" to "pseudoscience," now are you?

Trying to get Intelligent Design off the hook?

Nope. Pseudoscience is ID/creationism/cdesign proponensists hook of death.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Pseudoscience is ID/creationism/cdesign proponensists hook of death.

Looks to me like someone can't tell the difference between ID and Creationism.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Plutoing "Intelligent Design" to "pseudoscience," now are you?

Trying to get Intelligent Design off the hook?

Are you suggesting ID is science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you suggesting ID is science?

ID is science like evolution is science.

 

[bhsmte]

Looks to me like someone can't tell the difference between ID and Creationism.

Neither could the Christian judge in the Dover trial.

 

[TLK Valentine]

ID is science like evolution is science.

And since you don't consider evolution to be science, your opinion is "no."

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither could the Christian judge in the Dover trial.

Um ...

The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism,

SOURCE

Intelligent Design, as would Creationism, lost that trial because it was ruled that Intelligent Design is not science.

Something I've been saying for over a decade.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um ...

SOURCE

Intelligent Design, as would Creationism, lost that trial because it was ruled that Intelligent Design is not science.

Something I've been saying for over a decade.

And now you are being inconsistent. Evolution is science and was found to be science in more than one court hearing by Christian judges.

 

[AV1611VET]

And now you are being inconsistent. Evolution is science and was found to be science in more than one court hearing by Christian judges.

Wow.

You guys love to yak yourself out of understanding things, don't you?

Either that, or you yak until a mistake is made, then the whole point is made into spaghetti.

Intelligent Design is not ... that is not ... en oh tee ... Intelligent Design is not Creationism.

Intelligent Design is an attempt ... an attempt ... a tee tee e em pee tee ... an attempt to inject some kind of science into Creationism.

Some judge ruled correctly that the science that was trying to be snuck into Creationism does not belong there.

Let's simplify this for Occam razor's sake, shall we?

Here it comes ... get ready:

Intelligent Design is not Creationism.

You can argue otherwise if you want to, but it doesn't make it so.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll repeat the formula for those of you who are allergic to one-liners:

Creationism + Science = Intelligent Design

- or -

Creationism - Faith = Intelligent Design

Take your pick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow.

You guys love to yak yourself out of understanding things, don't you?

Either that, or you yak until a mistake is made, then the whole point is made into spaghetti.

Intelligent Design is not ... that is not ... en oh tee ... Intelligent Design is not Creationism.

Actually it is. That was shown in the Dover Trial and you have quoted the line that helped to make them lose more than once.

Intelligent Design is an attempt ... an attempt ... a tee tee e em pee tee ... an attempt to inject some kind of science into Creationism.

Yes, and since creationism is false they are all but guaranteed to fail.

Some judge ruled correctly that the science that was trying to be snuck into Creationism does not belong there.[/qoute]

No, that is not right. That was not what he ruled at all. Creationism is a myth, as we all know. They tried to disguise a myth and they were caught doing so.

Let's simplify this for Occam razor's sake, shall we?

Here it comes ... get ready:

Intelligent Design is not Creationism.

You already failed. You don't seem to understand how to use this tool either.

You can argue otherwise if you want to, but it doesn't make it so.

We don't just argue. We show that we are correct with valid evidence. I see that logic is still a tool missing from your toolbox.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll repeat the formula for those of you who are allergic to one-liners:

Creationism + Science = Intelligent Design

- or -

Creationism - Faith = Intelligent Design

Take your pick.

They are both equally wrong.

Get rid of "Science" and "Faith" in your claims and you would be correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

Get rid of "Science" and "Faith" in your claims and you would be correct.

Creationism runs on faith.

Is that why you're having trouble understanding?

Faith is getting in the way, isn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationism runs on faith.

And abusing the Bible.

Is that why you're having trouble understanding?

I have no problem understanding, that is your problem.

Faith is getting in the way, isn't it?

Unlike you I do not have that affliction.