[Bobboau]

unfortunately in war you oftine must become your enemy in order to beat him.

[Kosh]

But still, the scientific and academic community in general these days is starting to scare me, just as much as the church sometimes does.

How so?

unfortunately in war you oftine must become your enemy in order to beat him.

First, please learn how to sp311.

Second, if you become your enemy, then your enemy wins by default.

[vyper]

Bob has spelling rights due to his contribution to the community in the past.

[Clave]

I had stayed on your "Do not kill horribly and painfully" list

EVERYONE is on an0n's list..

[Singh]

I had stayed on your "Do not kill horribly and painfully" list

EVERYONE is on an0n's list..

Yeah. But I managed to get off it a long time ago for helping out with a PC problem.

Or perhaps that was a different list O_o...

bob: ill explain how a bit later, bit pressed for time atm. Sorry :/

[Stealth]

judges rule against homosexual marriages too.

what's your point...

[aldo_14]

judges rule against homosexual marriages too.

what's your point...

That this is yet more reinforcement that ID is not a science but is religion masquerading as a hypothesis (it's propenents admitted it didn't fit the criteria of a scientific theory, and suggested a redefinition of a theory that was almost identical to the definition of a hypothesis).

EDIT; actually, what is your point? AFAIK courts in a number of states have ruled that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, and the primary opposition is political (as about 80% of Republicans are against it).  Whereas this issue a hell of a lot more clear cut, as what is and what is not science is very clear.

[Kamikaze]

judges rule against homosexual marriages too.

what's your point...

Umm. That Intelligent Design really isn't science? That teaching Intelligent Design is unconstitutional? I believe those're pretty clear points, I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around them.

[WMCoolmon]

judges rule against homosexual marriages too.

what's your point...

Are you suggesting that awareness of homosexuality should be taught in science classes, too?

That's not a bad idea. I've heard a fair bit of misinformed opinions, such as homosexuality being unnatural, that would be within the scope of a biology class to clear up.

[karajorma]

judges rule against homosexual marriages too.

what's your point...

I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't even appear to know what ID is. I spent 7 pages trying to get you to explain it using more than one paragraph and got exactly nowhere.

So why you'd care whether it gets defeated or not is completely beyond me.

[Stealth]

I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't even appear to know what ID is. I spent 7 pages trying to get you to explain it using more than one paragraph and got exactly nowhere.

using more than one paragraph?  LOL.  because of course, if an explanation isn't PAGES long, it has to be incorrect, right?  *shakes head*

and to the last four people that quoted my post:
my point is: a judge ruled against homosexual marriages... but did that mean that homosexual marriages were wrong?
perhaps now you see what i'm getting at?

[Kosh]

my point is: a judge ruled against homosexual marriages... but did that mean that homosexual marriages were wrong?
perhaps now you see what i'm getting at?

ID isn't science. It is obviously not science. How much more clearly do you want us to put it?

my point is: a judge ruled against homosexual marriages... but did that mean that homosexual marriages were wrong?
perhaps now you see what i'm getting at?

And your point is very blunt, and is, in the end, utterly pointless.

[Kamikaze]

and to the last four people that quoted my post:
my point is: a judge ruled against homosexual marriages... but did that mean that homosexual marriages were wrong?

No, it means homosexual marriages were illegal. That is a big difference.

Notice that nobody said Intelligent Design is wrong (it can't be disproven, just like how you can't disprove that your life is guided by magic fairy dust). Only that it's wrong to teach it in schools because it's unconstitutional.

[karajorma]

I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't even appear to know what ID is. I spent 7 pages trying to get you to explain it using more than one paragraph and got exactly nowhere.

using more than one paragraph?  LOL.  because of course, if an explanation isn't PAGES long, it has to be incorrect, right?  *shakes head*

Your entire response was "There are some things that evolution can't explain. So God must have done them". I asked "What things?" and never got a satisfactory response from you. It's not the length. It's the total lack of any content that made your response so useless.

Your explaination failed to answer basic questions about ID. For instance ID claims to explain why humans exist but if you ask how long have they existed then ID fails to answer that. As I said before if you can't even begin to answer a basic question like that using ID then there isn't much to the theory at all. And that's the problem with ID. It isn't a theory at all. ID is simply something that has been tacked onto the bible in an attempt to make it sound like science. That's why it falls apart so quickly when you ask someone to explain what it is.

And you can laugh about the length of the explaination all you like but if you can't take more than a paragraph to explain ID then I don't see what you even want to teach kids in school. The explaination you gave would take 2-3 minutes to give. If the kids then spent the rest of the time getting an explaination of evolution they'd actually walk away with feeling of how pathetically unscientific ID actually is. You're shooting yourself in the foot if one paragraph is all you can say on the subject.

[WMCoolmon]

I don't know what you're complaining about. You don't even appear to know what ID is. I spent 7 pages trying to get you to explain it using more than one paragraph and got exactly nowhere.

using more than one paragraph?  LOL.  because of course, if an explanation isn't PAGES long, it has to be incorrect, right?  *shakes head*

When you consider that there are hundreds of books' worth of information on Evolution, evidence of why Evolution exists, and data gathered from research on Evolution as well as experiments based on the theory of Evolution, I would say that your paragraph is going to have to be pretty damn profound and obvious in order to make a dent in the theory. Such as: "Billions of people across the earth, at the same time, witnessed a massive, gleaming figure informing them that they were part of God's chosen people and that He had created the Earth, with large amounts of evidence that it was not created by him, to mislead those unfit to take part in his Plan."

[Stealth]

EDIT:  ehhh not worth getting involved in this.  I'm going to go with Ses's bit on the last thread... these things always come down to "Does God exist?"?  Not worth getting into that. 

[karajorma]

there is no evidence why evolution exists.  don't kid yourself.  there are theories.

likewise, there are no "large amounts of evidence that it was not created by him".  again.  don't kid yourself.  the Bible predicted things that would happen or be discovered BY SCIENCE thousands of years before.

And I still don't see you explaining ID. Instead you try to steer the conversation into a defence of evolution with claims that there is no evidence. This is a favourite tactic of proponents of ID. Because their theory is nothing more than a sham (One of the proponents of ID was forced to admit that ID isn't a scientific theory during the trial) they simply try to steer the topic away from ID at every opportunity. I'm not answering the other claims as they are completely off topic. If you believe in ID explain it. And do so without having to resort to specious arguments about biblical predictions that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And don't bother trying to get people to defend evolution either. There's evidence that has stood the scientific tests of the last 100 years. Just because you choose to ignore that evidence doesn't make it non-existant.

However ID is supposedly a new theory so you do need to explain it. Especially if you're claiming it's better than the current theory. And yet again you've failed to do so. If you seriously believe ID is anything more than a smokescreen then explain it and defend it when we point out the inevitable flaws in your argument. Otherwise you've basically proved my points that ID isn't a scientific theory (scientific theories can be defined) and that ID isn't understood by the people who claim that it's better than evolution.

You've yet to provide even the smallest shread of evidence that you even understand what ID actually is. How can you possibly tell me I'm wrong when you don't understand either of the two points being discussed?

[Stealth]

actually i agree that ID isn't a scientific theory. 

do we only teach our kids scientific theories in school?  cause i remember being taught a lot more than that in school

[karajorma]

You're more than welcome to teach unscientific theories in unscientific classes. But science class can only have science taught in it.

Every single opponent of ID in science class on this thead has said at one time or another that we have no objection to ID being taught in RE classes.

The main objection everyone has to ID is that it tries to pass itself off as science when it is nothing of the sort. 

[Stealth]

actually, 99% of Intelligent Design advocates are Christians in some way shape or form, right?  In that, they believe in a creator, and thus in intelligent design too.

that said, it would be hard to argue one way or the other, without first establishing whether God exists or not, in a "Does God Exist" type thread