Posted on 09/20/2006 12:34:51 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Your hypothetical is invalid. If ID starts presenting the resurrection of Christ in a science class, that would be a category mistake. But the resurrection isn't what ID is about.
>>Strawman, prove evolution, show something that evolved into something else.<<
I'm not seeing the answer to this.
Do you think you'll get an "I asked to first!"?
Perhaps you can enlighten us by telling us what attributes the Designer does have.
The fossil record, no doubt, establishes the "science" of evolution ? Further, it is for those on other threads to go ad hominem when a logical response is not available. I think better of us. Embarassment comes from lack of confidence, seeking the approval of others, etc. These "qualities" are lacking in me. The THEORY of evolution requires much more faith ("the substance of things hoped for") than the idea that things follow along on a logical (intelligent) basis. In my opinion.
An illustration of the intersection of two circles would be very helpful just about now.
Strawman: one does not "prove" a scientific theory. One disproves it.
As for showing something that evolved: This link has a bunch of examples for your perusal.
Those who do not want creationism taught in our schools are definitely AFRAID OF SOMETHING!
"Do you think you'll get an "I asked to first!"? "
No, I think I'll get a WAAA WAAA You don't like science.
What an idiot.
"As usual the atheists, liberal kooks are up in arms over this, overreacting as usual."
This is like teaching that the world is flat or that the sun orbits the earth. ID is a relic of the dark ages.
I find it absurd that someone puts their faith in lies dressed up to look like science instead of putting their faith directly in their religion. I think people who choose to do that are weak in faith and easily taken in by the scam artists promoting ID.
After an interval of only three frickin' posts, you're having a panic attack? Sheesh.
Do you think you'll get an "I asked to first!"?
No. See post #46.
ID does not rely on the scientific method. ID also says the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the universe and all interactions and phenomenon in it. ID contradicts science in that regard and then introduces and inserts arbitrary forces to account for the phenomenon. Those arbitrary forces are not subject to study by the scientific method also. Most often they take the form of a fleeting existence.
Druby's post made me wonder if you would "get it"; it seems apparent that you don't.
>>After an interval of only three frickin' posts, you're having a panic attack? Sheesh.<<
Lighten up, big shot.
After you.
How about taking up my original challenge? Provide us with a theory that explains the evidence better than the theory of evolution, is testable, and is falsifiable. A Nobel Prize awaits you if you are successful!
Hon, you didn't ask ME the question and I do not push AI.
However, I see many holes in evolution that just don't make it absolute.
As a homeschooling mother, I teach that. Nothing is absolute. We touch on all theories.
oh puhleeze .. it is only a discussion about ID!
nothing about ID being taken up as a scientific theory.
'So what happens when the left decides that our children have to be taught about Islam and Buddhism and all the rest of it?'
This is a meaningless question, Michigan is a majority Christian state and they can choose theories of discussion that involves Christian viewpoints if they wish, this is a democratic society where majority voters values shoild prevail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.