[[You are appealing to my emotions, saying an “anything goes” world would be the result of not accepting your theory.]]
Actually no “I” wasn’t- If that was part of my post- it was somethign I skimmed over and didn’t read- copy/paste- I wouldn’t suggest that and have argued against such a notion on philosophy forums infact
[[Your theory is not on solid ground if you must resort to such appeals.]]
My arguments are infact on solid ground
[[It most certainly does. You’ve had a large religious movement promoting it from the beginning.]]
LOL- first you post somethign fro mwhat you call a ‘prominent ID’ist’ Demski denouncing relgious thought, now you’re turnign aroudn and saying ID started off as a r’religious movement’ lol-
[[Even using your view of the Discovery Institute,]]
Psssst- DI and even organizations liek IRC aren’t the sum of ID- you shoudl really look into this a bit better- I personally beleive God is the creator and intellgience behind ID, but there are soem that don’t beleive in God yet who find Darwinism innadequate, and think there’s soem kind of ‘intelligence’ behind irreducible ocmplexity- (althout they are confused and think nature is capable of producing it—)
[[very activist organization with admittedly non-scientific goals that is almost solely responsible for all of the pseudo-scientific]]
Lol- ‘non-scientific’ apaprently means that IF somethign in science does infact agree with the bible and Creation, and an institution tries to promote that fact, then by golly they mustn’t be ‘scientific’- Swell reasoning there- Apparently ‘sciecne’ means that if somethign agrees with hte bible, it must be suppressed and not allowed in debate to you- Not sure why you folks have to keep resortign to spurious accusaitons and why you feel your hypothesis isn’t on solid enough ground to stand against ID- but maligning somehting because it muight happen to agree with hte bible, sure isn’t one of your strogner ‘coutner-arguments-
and tell me Anti0- Was it ‘activist’ of science books to promote missing links when they don’t have al lthe facts? Or to promote Eukoroytes as ‘evolution in action’ when it was nothign more than a symbiotic relationship which those doign hte promoting KNEW FULL WELL, but kept hidden? Or was it activist to promote a ‘nearly compelte evolution of hearing’ by deceitfully showing skulls of vastly different sizes set next to each other and drawn hte saem size in order to try to impress a nice neat little progression? Or settign a skull from a rat sized animal next to a hippo sized one and claimign they are ‘close kin’?
Don’t even start abotu ‘activism’ when evos have been nothign BUT activists all along- Cripes!
[[The credibility is not helped due to most of the arguments basically being a rehash of Creation Science arguments.]]
Your ignorance of ID is really showing through
[[Global warming has a lot more legitimate science behind it than ID does.]]
Just when I thought you couldn’t get much more ignroant about ID you go and post somethign like that- Well done! (I have REAMS of evidence showing that the IPC scientists were FORCED to state thigns they KNEW wasn’t correct- that isn’t sicnece)
I suspected that about many of your posts.
LOL- first you post somethign fro mwhat you call a ‘prominent ID’ist’ Demski denouncing relgious thought
No, I posted something from one of the most prominent (fact) IDers promoting religion.
but there are soem that don’t beleive in God yet who find Darwinism innadequate
I'm still waiting for you to produce all of those atheist IDers.
Lol- ‘non-scientific’ apaprently means that IF somethign in science does infact agree with the bible and Creation
Actually, what makes it non-scientific is that all results must agree with a preconceived non-scientific conclusion. In fact, to work for the ICR a person must agree that the Bible is scientifically free from any error; therefore, any research they do must support that conclusion. IOW, you are not free to examine any evidence of the age of the Earth and come to your own conclusions based on the evidence, you must make the evidence or the interpretation of it fit to the literal story of Creation as written in the Bible.
Your ignorance of ID is really showing through
So the creationists weren't the first ones to bring up that flawed 2L argument, the one so popular with IDers these days?