Viper1 said:
ID? I am doing that laughing out loud thing. ID is nothing more than the church trying to remain relevant. As someone with a background in science, ID is like trying to force a theory onto a subject with no evidence to support it first and then using a backwards scientific method to shoehorn ID into a "plausible" theory which fails at every level possible to fail at as a theory. I'm not saying a God doesn't exisat at all or that he didn't "intelligently deisgn" our universe but he sure as hell did not set things up as ID proponents proclaim. Any person with a scientific background that advocates the curent theory of ID should be stripped of their right to practice science. To me, it's the equivelant of a lawyer being adamant that his client is innocent despite video evidence his client commited the crime, bragged of the crime and congessedto the crime with details impossible for others to know.
I suppose my biggest problem with ID is that it is a solution trying to find evidence rather that evidence pointing to a solution (you know, as the scientific method was designed to do). |
ID is really more than its origins, it's a concept, one that can be shown to have a bastard history rooted in creationism, but that's just because political correctness says that being affiliated to a thought of faith is wrong, when it really is only wrong if that thought of faith is off the deep end, and Christianity really isn't! Even people living 900 years is believeable. I mean if you're going to believe in parallel universes and all of the things in the world today coming from chance, I mean humans living 900 years is a joke of a step of faith, honestly.
I think you're right, God did make this earth. (lol, I know that's knot what you said but that's what I felt like replying). You think ID proponent as braindead drones, but most of them are as committed to the scientific debate as you are, but I don't know if that's something you'd like entering your frame of M-hindzz.
Meh- hayinzzzzz
