|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 2, 2017 4:39:53 GMT
I don't think it's fair to lump Hugh Ross in with the others since he's actually an Old Earth Creationist who has a very different interpretation of the bible than the others (all of whom are Young Earth Creationists). Similarly, Guillermo Gonzalez (the only other astrophysicist mentioned) is also an Old Earth Creationist. As far as I know, nobody in the field of astronomy believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You do know the difference between intelligent design and YEC/OEC, right? Do tell Cody. As far as I'm aware, there's no difference beyond a name change.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 2, 2017 5:09:30 GMT
You do know the difference between intelligent design and YEC/OEC, right? Do tell Cody. As far as I'm aware, there's no difference beyond a name change. While I'm pretty most ID proponents reject evolution outright, many ID arguments could easily be applied to theistic evolution (evolution happened but it required and "intelligent designer" to guide it). That may be what he's referring to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 6:19:49 GMT
Still can't answer the questions huh? You chicken shit little bitch, still running away from your lies are you? please quote this for me.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Jun 2, 2017 6:22:42 GMT
I don't think it's fair to lump Hugh Ross in with the others since he's actually an Old Earth Creationist who has a very different interpretation of the bible than the others (all of whom are Young Earth Creationists). Similarly, Guillermo Gonzalez (the only other astrophysicist mentioned) is also an Old Earth Creationist. As far as I know, nobody in the field of astronomy believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You do know the difference between intelligent design and YEC/OEC, right? There is no difference apart from having different sounds and spellings.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 2, 2017 8:00:17 GMT
Do tell Cody. As far as I'm aware, there's no difference beyond a name change. While I'm pretty most ID proponents reject evolution outright, many ID arguments could easily be applied to theistic evolution (evolution happened but it required and "intelligent designer" to guide it). That may be what he's referring to. Intelligent Design as a name and concept was coined by the discovery institute, a creationist organisation, specifically to be creationism without mentioning any deity and instead referring to some nebulous designer. They hoped that by removing any reference to God or gods that it could therefore be taught in American public schools. This failed due to the Dover vs kitzmiller court case where this attempt at deception was exposed. In other words, there is no difference between creationism and intelligent design beyond the name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 8:59:42 GMT
While I'm pretty most ID proponents reject evolution outright, many ID arguments could easily be applied to theistic evolution (evolution happened but it required and "intelligent designer" to guide it). That may be what he's referring to. Intelligent Design as a name and concept was coined by the discovery institute, a creationist organisation, specifically to be creationism without mentioning any deity and instead referring to some nebulous designer. They hoped that by removing any reference to God or gods that it could therefore be taught in American public schools. This failed due to the Dover vs kitzmiller court case where this attempt at deception was exposed. In other words, there is no difference between creationism and intelligent design beyond the name. The origin of the term existed long before that, even as far back as Darwin's time. Apparently even he referred to it. "One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 9:39:51 GMT
Intelligent Design as a name and concept was coined by the discovery institute, a creationist organisation, specifically to be creationism without mentioning any deity and instead referring to some nebulous designer. They hoped that by removing any reference to God or gods that it could therefore be taught in American public schools. This failed due to the Dover vs kitzmiller court case where this attempt at deception was exposed. In other words, there is no difference between creationism and intelligent design beyond the name. The origin of the term existed long before that, even as far back as Darwin's time. Nevertheless, what EEH said is true. The intelligent design movement was started by creationists specifically to try and end run around the 1st amendment. It's a fundamentally dishonest tactic, and those who came up with it are nothing more than dishonest creationists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 9:48:41 GMT
The origin of the term existed long before that, even as far back as Darwin's time. Nevertheless, what EEH said is true. The intelligent design movement was started by creationists specifically to try and end run around the 1st amendment. It's a fundamentally dishonest tactic, and those who came up with it are nothing more than dishonest creationists. Lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 11:59:53 GMT
Nevertheless, what EEH said is true. The intelligent design movement was started by creationists specifically to try and end run around the 1st amendment. It's a fundamentally dishonest tactic, and those who came up with it are nothing more than dishonest creationists. Lol Truth. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 13:48:32 GMT
You do know the difference between intelligent design and YEC/OEC, right? Do tell Cody. As far as I'm aware, there's no difference beyond a name change.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Jun 3, 2017 3:42:20 GMT
Do tell Cody. As far as I'm aware, there's no difference beyond a name change. That's a great video. Here's another from Ray Comfort, arguably* the greatest thinker of the present age. Living organisms are most certainly designed by some Higher Intelligence but so are drops of water H2O. Yes water is another demonstration of ID, according to Ray: *Yes it's an arguable point, but then you can argue about anything.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Jun 3, 2017 4:31:22 GMT
Can I just say I DOnt believe in ID. I just made this thread to trigger atheists and triggered they have been. Fuck, you're a dumbshit.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Jun 3, 2017 4:35:05 GMT
The origin of the term existed long before that, even as far back as Darwin's time. Nevertheless, what EEH said is true. The intelligent design movement was started by creationists specifically to try and end run around the 1st amendment. It's a fundamentally dishonest tactic, and those who came up with it are nothing more than dishonest creationists. Cody dishonest? Shocking. Next you're going to say that water makes things wet.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 3, 2017 8:28:40 GMT
Cuckmachinery, he's asking for evidence I've made zero claims about. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif) In fact I'm starting to wonder whether Blade might have a point. Evolution really seems like a religion to some of you here. Y'all a bunch of atheist zealots!! Here's a list for you Cody: That's an impressive list but Barbera McClintock - my science hero - trumps all IDist combined on her own. Her work on transposable elements was so far ahead of her field it took years for everyone to catch up and understand her work. When they did she became one of only a few people to be awarded a sole Nobel Prize. IDist have tried to hijack her work as supporting their daft ideas, she worked on how genomes can respond to environmental stress by activating transposons, obviously she had no time for them!
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Jun 3, 2017 8:43:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 3, 2017 9:54:42 GMT
<extensive list of authoritative support for intelligent design> List goes on There might be a 9 ton elephant in the room no one is addressing, but something very certain is that much calling itself religion is not religion, and much calling itself science is not science. There will be trouble until it all gets sorted out. The necessity of an intelligent designer has become more obvious with every day since the idea was challenged in Darwin's time (although not by Darwin). There are no scientists today, zero percent, who think any comprehensive and realistic scenario for an "abiogensis" has been found. The number who believe one will eventually be found decreases every day, mostly because there are classes every day. Rather what you have are people who dodge and obfuscate. Here's how this very simple step might have been accomplished. Here's one more. You never can say never. They repeat arguments that were won in times long gone with the far too little evidence that was available then. The numbers given on how many in the public "believe" anything in opposition to science are obviously wrong since there is so much confusion what is science and what is religion. The people most often heard tend to be people who speak more loudly than they have prepared. The amateurs have taken temporary control of "science" and "religion." The Democrats are not good scientists. The Republicans are not (mostly still) good theologians. They do seem to hold the stage so far.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 3, 2017 14:59:49 GMT
The necessity of an intelligent designer has become more obvious with every day since the idea was challenged in Darwin's time (although not by Darwin). It has only become more "obvious" to deluded, ideological nutcases who are scientifically illiterate. And of course, you just pulled this out of your ignorant ass. You couldn't back this up with a serious citation if your pathetic life depended on it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 3, 2017 17:59:25 GMT
The necessity of an intelligent designer has become more obvious with every day since the idea was challenged in Darwin's time (although not by Darwin). It has only become more "obvious" to deluded, ideological nutcases who are scientifically illiterate. And of course, you just pulled this out of your [vast computer empire]. You couldn't back this up with a serious citation if your pathetic life depended on it. You were perhaps going to say something about "serious citations"?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 3, 2017 18:09:42 GMT
tpfkar ![](https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/71/31/713175884f15ec7533261bc08d255e6d.png) Can't articulate it yourself? ![](https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/b7/9c/b79c699665c872cb7ade16bfc1b3e813.png) Science proven wrong yet AGAIN. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jun 4, 2017 0:13:48 GMT
What the Board wants:![](https://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/171020100/616723661/stock-vector-cartoon-vector-fantasy-medieval-executioner-hangman-headsman-with-large-axe-rope-and-black-hood-616723661.jpg)
|
|