Creationist Wolf in Cheap Clothing

I'm quite serious. You came in and with the first sentence of your first post set the tone of the exchange between you and Sly with this:

Granted, he has responded in kind which is no better. It escalated from there and detracted from an educational and intelligent exchange.

I'm almost starting to find it comical how often that particular accusation has been flung in my direction lately. Ask Superfluous Nut, Tim Tam, Ecilam, Articulatekitten, Fred, Builder, or Honeygirl if I've ignored their points or treated them with any less respect than Sly, Braves, Rob, or any other Christian on this board.

Sly has acted defensively in this thread. I want you to know that I did notice and do appreciate your willingness to admonish HH, per the rules of the forum.

Faith is a synonym for trust. ID can stand on its own without a need for religion. As Kozel pointed out, ID is largely an attempt to address the problems of the origin of the universe that Darwinist evolution cannot. People can consider the scientific possibility of an intelligent creator based on nature itself without submitting to prayer or setting foot inside a church.

That would depend on how one defines "evidence" I suppose. Personally, I've seen abundant evidence for a creator.

That's all I'm personally asking be taught, if the issue of the origin of the known universe is to be taught at all.

Again, that depends on how one defines evidence and science, doesn't it?

Could a hypothesis not be tested by negative result as well as positive?

And as far as I know, ID doesn't dispute that. As you say, species have evolved subtlely (and sometimes significantly) within themselves continually and there is abundant evidence to support that idea. But living matter from non-living matter, or non-living matter from void? That's something else again.

 

i'll take this opportunity to ask what does ID propose, exactly?

 

I wouldn't disagree. Granted, I don't know the Cardinal's qualifications to make such a statement, but I'd be surprised if he was an exceptionally learned man of natural history.

 

Then consider the possibility that it might be true. I have barely read any threads in R&S, so I had no idea that other people said the same thing. I hadn't ever come in here until I saw the girl in the other forum whining about being banned from this one (and she sounded like she deserved it). It certainly seems like you have a double standard, and note that your post right before this one said "For the record, I've only seen Sly argue the points presented in this thread, or introduce other corresponding evidence." That was obviously a lie, and I'm glad you now admit that he's been behaving very poorly in this thread. As for the rest, I've had plenty of opportunities to throw insults back at slydevyl, but I haven't. I've taken his, but I've only responded with more knowledge that proves him wrong.

No, they can't. That's the problem. By its very definition, science can never say anything whatsoever about a supernatural creator.

 

But you have two totally contradictory theories, so one of them must be untrue. So, which is it? Big Bang or Gravity?

 

The rule of this forum is to admonish HH?


In all seriousness, I haven't done anything that Sly hasn't done. And I haven't sniped anyone. The remark that vp and Sly took to heart was a parody of their own reasoning, followed by the typical aggressive Sly backlash. "idiots" "unintelligent". It's par for the course from him. The point of the quote was that Sly was cursing us from the high hills, while standing on very shakey ground, yet he's oblivious to it.

Including that, I've said nothing out of line. If Sly would stop his burden shifting, evasive, aggressive, and insulting debate tactics, we could discuss the point of this thread, which is the contention that ID is creationism in wolf's clothing, and it's corollary that it is not science, but rather core philosophy (a point I very willingly stipulate).

 

Then science is restrictive and flawed and I can't fathom why it is generally deemed superior, especially in light of the too many times to count it has been wrong.

 

Yes, yes, I started everything in the thread and have called you an idiot.













Except I haven't and I didn't.

 

Because you can prove things with science; you can't with religion. You can also build bridges and fly planes with science, but if someone wants to try and build a bridge out of prayers, more power to them.

 

Science has to be wrong sometimes, or else it cannot exist. there's the crux of your failed understanding. Your Hypothesis can never be wrong.