Good Card read on I.D.

[Ganzo]

It always amuses, me that most openminded, flexible, willing to dicuss; are the seposed "religious" side of this board. While "science" side long ago took a position of fundamentalist, know-it-all and will not listen to anything.

.

Ironic, isn't it? All sides seem to have agenda's which is what Card's real point was, and one that escaped many in this thread. Even those who read it and yet didn't seem to discuss any points, merely tangent on things that had no bearing on any of the relevant things brought up.

Oh really? I don't see you, Mart or Ganzo (I’m assuming these are the well adjusted, rational, religious folk that make up the beacon of debate) discussing ANY points, only whining from the cheap seats.

I'm sorry that my "whining" bothers you. I cannot argue points in a debate where I do not represent ether side. All I can do is observe behavior. While i do not support ID theory, at least that side seems willing to discuss the issue, while "darvinists" simply dismiss them without bothering to look into arguments.

[Zanchief]

You're comparing scientists to crackpottery.

The false assumption that most ID supporters make is that scientists aren't challenging Darwinism. It's the scientists that are the ones ACTUALLY trying to learn and expand the theory of evolution, you know, in a scientific matter.

Everyone else is just trying to justify their beliefs.

[dammuzis]

well the geological column one is easy
im sure you are familiar with it, all the text books say the same thing abour layers of rock that equal certain eras

problem with it is that the column doesnt exist anywhere other then the textbooks

the horse evolutionary model is another interesting one

they show you the small horse then slightly bigger and bigger etc

but what they dont tell you is the model cannot be correct since some of the larger models have been dated to exist before the smallest so called horse. also the rib bones dont follow a patter, first there is more then less then more then less etc etc.

dont get me started on fraudulent "missing links" lucy piltdown man, java man, nebraska man. and many more have either to be shown to be false (lucy for instance was shown to have had her bones sawed and shaped to fit the finders theory) or just plain misunderstood.

what i have seen is that when darwinist dont have evidence to back up a theory they just make it up

[Jimmy Durante]

But who created the buggers?

[Thon]

5. The church and state argument is deliberately misleading. First, the Designists are not, in fact, advocating "God." They are very careful not to specify who or what the Intelligent Designer might be. So they are not advocating for any particular religion, or any religion at all. For all anyone knows, the supposed Intelligent Designers might be an alien species of mortal, ungodlike beings.

So how did a super advanced species of mortal, ungodlike beings come about, advanced enough to drive their intergalactic spaceship over to earth and release Life Fairies? The problem with intelligent design is, where did the designer come from? you cannot possibly accept that a race of aliens did it. the creator would have to be God, or some limited form of it.

And if you are willing to believe that something with absolutely zero proof should be put up on the same pedestal as a scientific theory, it is you who are the fanatic. and calling you thus, does not make the caller a fanatic for the opposite 'side'.

Focus on the scientific advancement we've made in the last 100 years, even the last 10 years. It was made by asking how things work, then investigating how. Evolutionary Science might not illuminate the whole mural of how we came about, but i'm willing to bet that it's looking in the right area. At least moreso than those pushing a theory that some mysterious intelligence beyond our understanding did it.

[Tae-Bo]

hurr i see i'm too scary to be addressed

[Ganzo]

You're comparing scientists to crackpottery.

Hmm where?

[Zanchief]

You're comparing scientists to crackpottery.

Hmm where?

While i do not support ID theory, at least that side seems willing to discuss the issue, while "darvinists" simply dismiss them without bothering to look into arguments.

[Ganzo]

If being fundamentalist about certain issue makes one a "crackpot", than you are correct. But to me thats a stretch

[Yamori]

Yamori didn't read the article.

I just skimmed it

[alezrik]

The church and state argument is deliberately misleading. First, the Designists are not, in fact, advocating "God." They are very careful not to specify who or what the Intelligent Designer might be. So they are not advocating for any particular religion, or any religion at all. For all anyone knows, the supposed Intelligent Designers might be an alien species of mortal, ungodlike beings.



So if in the future it turned out that we were some alien races science experiment 5 billion years ago, wouldnt that also disprove everything about western religion, sense isnt it anti-religious to believe in intelligent life other than mankind?

[Lyion]

Kurt Vonnegut weighs in..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5165342