Grandpa and Grandma

ID

Two letters that have caused one lengthy thread.
Can someone test another's view of what ID is? Maybe not, but
what if ID were for 'identify' as in this creature was related to that
one according to how the fossils are being classified, when one
thinks this creature or that is a earlier version of another creature
on the evolutionary time line? Can that be tested and proven
wrong either? If not, is it just an opinion like the view of ID for
intelligent design?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
ID

Two letters that have caused one lengthy thread.
Can someone test another's view of what ID is? Maybe not, but
what if ID were for 'identify' as in this creature was related to that
one according to how the fossils are being classified, when one
thinks this creature or that is a earlier version of another creature
on the evolutionary time line? C ...[text shortened]... ong either? If not, is it just an opinion like the view of ID for
intelligent design?
Kelly

I'm happy that ID/Creationism has been shown to be a fraud and sent to the corner with a dunce cap on.
What was good enough for Grampaw ain't good enough for me.
That's progress.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I'm happy that ID/Creationism has been shown to be a fraud and sent to the corner with a dunce cap on.
What was good enough for Grampaw ain't good enough for me.
That's progress.

Actually, ID is somewhat related to what we are discovering in quantum mechanics. There is a theory for example that consciousness shapes our material world.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I'm happy that ID/Creationism has been shown to be a fraud and sent to the corner with a dunce cap on.
What was good enough for Grampaw ain't good enough for me.
That's progress.

So your response about the similarities in weaknesses is one has
been discredited and the other hasn’t been? That makes it okay?
I would have supposed that if evolution has the same type of
issues, should tell us that it too needs to be called a fraud and
sent packing to the corner with a dunce cap on too. I guess if it is
your pet theory it gets a pass?

Maybe if someone went judge shopping they can get another judge
to side with ID, that would set the universe right, uh? You know, all it
takes for truth to be declared is get a judge to agree? Would that
be enough to call evolution a fraud and sent to the corner with a dunce
cap on? Is that how it works now, settle science in the courts? How we
measure progress today according to you seems a bit odd to me, but
if it is done in the courts why do we need science to look for truth, or
religion, let the lawyers do it!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So your response about the similarities in weaknesses is one has
been discredited and the other hasn’t been? That makes it okay?
I would have supposed that if evolution has the same type of
issues, should tell us that it too needs to be called a fraud and
sent packing to the corner with a dunce cap on too. I guess if it is
your pet theory it gets a pas ...[text shortened]... the courts why do we need science to look for truth, or
religion, let the lawyers do it!
Kelly

Science is happy with where it is. We don;t need lawyers to prove evolution - we're happy with it. It's only ID / creationist proponents who aren;t happy!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Science is happy with where it is. We don;t need lawyers to prove evolution - we're happy with it. It's only ID / creationist proponents who aren;t happy!

Well, as long as your happy.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well, as long as your happy.
Kelly

Delighted.

Thanks,
L

Originally posted by KellyJay
Is that how it works now, settle science in the courts?

Maybe this setback will spur the ID crowd on to come up with some real science.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Maybe this setback will spur the ID crowd on to come up with some real science.

Maybe I'm just way out in left field, but perhaps some of us zany IDers don't feel the need to justify our position with science. Heck, maybe some of us are happy to let the science community come to whatever conclusions they please. What the hell, maybe some of us crazy IDers think science and theology are inherantly so vastly different in their composition and purpose that attempts to reconcile the two are innately fallacious, as the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and neither has a damn thing to say about the other.


.....but maybe I'm just way out in left field. 😉

Grandma got run over by a reindeer.....

Originally posted by Omnislash
.....but maybe I'm just way out in left field. 😉

I know you don't think ID is science, 'slash; I agree with you, and wish all other pro-ID people did too.

Originally posted by Omnislash
Maybe I'm just way out in left field, but perhaps some of us zany IDers don't feel the need to justify our position with science. Heck, maybe some of us are happy to let the science community come to whatever conclusions they please. What the hell, maybe some of us crazy IDers think science and theology are inherantly so vastly different in their compositi ...[text shortened]... a damn thing to say about the other.


.....but maybe I'm just way out in left field. 😉

Way out left...

Originally posted by Halitose
Way out left...

"Grandma and Grandpa
in the back of the car
Babe I'm on fire"

Hello Hali.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"Grandma and Grandpa
in the back of the car
Babe I'm on fire"

Hello Hali.

Yo. Wassup? The forums have certainly been on fire in my absence...