We got news for ya:
ID is NOT, in any way, a science, or scientific.
It has no way to test its “theory”, does not explain how things got the way they are, and offers ZERO evidence to back up its assertions.
IS IS simply creationism by another name.
Admit this truth and move on.
“We got news for ya:
ID is NOT, in any way, a science, or scientific.
It has no way to test its “theory”, does not explain how things got the way they are, and offers ZERO evidence to back up its assertions.
IS IS simply creationism by another name.
Admit this truth and move on”
You have just proven you are ignorant of ID and completely clueless about hte issue- but thanks for your comment- it is quite telling of the blind bias that is prevelent in our society- Kudos for being hte moniker for blinad religious agenda!
Actually, that’s what Dembski was working on. Ways to
determine whether an item is designed(flint arrowheads, electro-
magnetic receivers, electronic signals, wall paintings, etc.) and see if the
mathematical techniques derived could be applied to
bio. systems.
I still don’t understand that as the understanding of the basic cell,
and the DNA and its’ attending structures get’s more and more
complicated with its functions, and controls, that it is
considered as evolved with no outside help. Yet a simple
electromagnetic wave, if it appears to hold some sort of
code is considered a sign of intelligent life. I guess
DNA is no longer considered as being a type of code.
Couldn’t an electromagnetic wave have “evolved” having passed through
so much of space? Don’t tell the SETI folks that, they
would lose much of their “sexiness” and funding.
Whatever it is, it is the truth.
“We got news for ya:
ID is NOT, in any way, a science, or scientific.
It has no way to test its “theory”, does not explain how things got the way they are, and offers ZERO evidence to back up its assertions.
IS IS simply creationism by another name.
Admit this truth and move on.”
I can make much the same argument for Big Bangism. Please provide evidence from before the Big Bang.
I think science and intelligent design are quite compatible. You obviously haven’t read Goedel’s incompleteness theorem.
you:
We got news for ya:
ID is NOT, in any way, a science, or scientific.
It has no way to test its “theory”, does not explain how things got the way they are, and offers ZERO evidence to back up its assertions.
IS IS simply creationism by another name.
Admit this truth and move on.
ME; YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPERATION SCIENCE AND HISTORICAL SCIENCE, AND IF YOU DID, YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.
BUT, IM GLAD TO SEE YOU FOLLOWED BY ORIGINAL POST:
1. CREATIONISM IN DISGUISE
2. ITS NOT SCIENCE
3. REPEAT ONE AND TWO LOUDER AND LOUDER.
Remember how the appendix was considered a "vestigial organ"? They're still pushing the crackpot theory on Talk Origins and Biology on-line.
A vestigial process that extends from the lower end of the cecum and that resembles a small pouch.Newsflash: Purpose of appendix believed found.
And tonsils?
My favorite one is the "fact" that the coccyx is a leftover monkey tail.
Evolution puts the funny in science™
Admit this truth and move on."
Very soon to be followed by frothing at the mouth, IMO.
BTW; what is the meaning of "IS"?
And what if we don't "admit this truth and move on"?
Are you getting ready to clobber us?