What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?

Evolutionists Could Never Have Done This

Mitt Romneys sideburns said:
Yes. The scientific knowledge gained by such endeavors will advance science and technology.

The real question is, why are you people so afraid of the advancement of human knowledge and technology?

If it were up to the theologists, we would still be throwing rocks at each other in caves.
Click to expand...

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

  • ANTISEPTIC SURGERY - JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
  • BACTERIOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
  • CALCULUS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
  • CELESTIAL MECHANICS - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
  • CHEMISTRY - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
  • COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
  • COMPUTER SCIENCE - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
  • DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
  • DYNAMICS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
  • ELECTRONICS - JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
  • ELECTRODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
  • ELECTRO-MAGNETICS - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
  • ENERGETICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
  • ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS - HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
  • FIELD THEORY - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
  • FLUID MECHANICS - GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
  • GALACTIC ASTRONOMY - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
  • GAS DYNAMICS - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
  • GENETICS - GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
  • GLACIAL GEOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
  • GYNECOLOGY - JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
  • HYDRAULICS - LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
  • HYDROGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
  • HYDROSTATICS - BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
  • ICHTHYOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
  • ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY - WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
  • MODEL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
  • NATURAL HISTORY - JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
  • NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY - BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
  • OCEANOGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
  • OPTICAL MINERALOGY - DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
  • PALEONTOLOGY - JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
  • PATHOLOGY - RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
  • PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
  • REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
  • STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
  • STRATIGRAPHY - NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
  • SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY - CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
  • THERMODYNAMICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
  • THERMOKINETICS - HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
  • VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
 
Theocrat said:
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
  • ANTISEPTIC SURGERY - JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
  • BACTERIOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
  • CALCULUS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
  • CELESTIAL MECHANICS - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
  • CHEMISTRY - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
  • COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
  • COMPUTER SCIENCE - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
  • DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
  • DYNAMICS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
  • ELECTRONICS - JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
  • ELECTRODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
  • ELECTRO-MAGNETICS - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
  • ENERGETICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
  • ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS - HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
  • FIELD THEORY - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
  • FLUID MECHANICS - GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
  • GALACTIC ASTRONOMY - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
  • GAS DYNAMICS - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
  • GENETICS - GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
  • GLACIAL GEOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
  • GYNECOLOGY - JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
  • HYDRAULICS - LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
  • HYDROGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
  • HYDROSTATICS - BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
  • ICHTHYOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
  • ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY - WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
  • MODEL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
  • NATURAL HISTORY - JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
  • NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY - BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
  • OCEANOGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
  • OPTICAL MINERALOGY - DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
  • PALEONTOLOGY - JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
  • PATHOLOGY - RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
  • PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
  • REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
  • STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
  • STRATIGRAPHY - NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
  • SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY - CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
  • THERMODYNAMICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
  • THERMOKINETICS - HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
  • VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
Click to expand...

Yeah? And? So?

Newton also believed in Alchemy. So by your logic Alchemy must also be true. The number of people who had faith in something alone does not translate into truth.
 
How Can You Believe DNA Evolved?

LibertyOfOne said:
Nice try. Just because I can't explain that is not proof of a god. Nor is any absence of evidence. That would be an argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...

Then you believe in the evolution of DNA on blind faith.
 
Truth Warrior said:
From thread page # 33:

"Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does – except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions – overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn't a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use) – of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.

This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science."
Click to expand...

If creationists didn't try to force their teachings as packaged science into the class room then there wouldn't be a problem.
 
Theocrat said:
Then you believe in the evolution of DNA on blind faith.
Click to expand...

When you said evolve I took it in the sense that you meant in how it arose. There is not enough conclusive information on that part of the subject to posit a conclusive theory on the origin of DNA, but that is separate from evolution. Evolution at the gene level is a scientific fact.
 
LibertyOfOne said:
If creationists didn't try to force their teachings as packaged science into the class room then there wouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

If evolutionists didn't try to force their teachings as packaged science into the class room then there wouldn't be a problem .... either.

Most of the creationists, I've talked to about the subject, tend to be be very accepting of both natural selection and genetic mutation. It's the new species part that really hangs them up and pisses them off.

BTW, I'm not a creationist nor an ID defender either. We just happen to agree that "transformism" AKA macro evolution is dogmatic, bogus "science" ( so called ) and BS.
 
Truth Warrior said:
If evolutionists didn't try to force their teachings as packaged science into the class room then there wouldn't be a problem .... either.

Most of the creationists, I've talked to about the subject, tend to be be very accepting of both natural selection and genetic mutation. It's the new species part that really hangs them up and pisses them off.

BTW, I'm not a creationist nor an ID defender either. We just happen to agree that "transformism" AKA macro evolution is dogmatic, bogus "science" ( so called ) and BS.
Click to expand...

Speciation by diffinition is macroevolution. New species have all ready been done in the lab.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
 
Steaming Soap-Box

LibertyOfOne said:
Yeah? And? So?

Newton also believed in Alchemy. So by your logic Alchemy must also be true. The number of people who had faith in something alone does not translate into truth.
Click to expand...

Those examples were given to silence your remark that creationists do not wish to advance science and technology. In fact, if it weren't for creationists in history, science wouldn't be where it is today.

Darwinian evolution has contributed nothing to science, technology, or society for that matter. It's a useless hypothesis, and a superstitious one, at that. It's not why we have computers (intelligently designed). It's not why we've advanced in architecture (intelligently design). It's not why we have political constitutions (intelligently designed). It's not why we have hospitals and orphanages (intelligently designed). Darwinian evolution is a disease in science. It's a myth, a fairy tale for grownups who simply hate God and refuse to see the obvious evidence of God's existence by His own creation.

Evolutionists are trying to steal everything from the creationists who worked so hard in history past, by the grace of God, to develop and establish the scientific disciplines we enjoy today. Evolutionists cannot account for the uniformity of nature which makes induction possible in scientific experimentation and analysis. In short, Darwinian evolution is a God-damned joke, and those who continue to prop up the stinking, filthy, and rotting corpse of macroevolution are the necrophiliac puppeteers who are truly hindering the advancement of science and technology in the scientific community, not the creationists.
 
Last edited:
Theocrat said:
Those examples were given to silence your remark that creationists do not wish to advance science and technology. In fact, if it weren't for creationists in history, science wouldn't be where it is today.

Darwinian evolution has contributed nothing to science, technology, or society for that matter. It's a useless hypothesis, and a superstitious one, at that. It's not why we have computers (intelligently designed). It's not why we've advanced in architecture (intelligently design). It's not why we have political constitutions (intelligently designed). It's not why we have hospitals and orphanages (intelligently designed). Darwinian evolution is a disease in science. It's a myth, a fairy tale for grownups who simply hate God and refuse to see the obvious evidence of God's existence by His own creation.

Evolutionists are trying to steal everything from the creationists who worked so hard in history past, by the grace of God, to develop and establish the scientific disciplines we enjoy today. Evolutionists cannot account for the uniformity of nature which makes induction possible in scientific experimentation and analysis. In short, Darwinian evolution is a God-damned joke, and those who continue to prop up the stinking, filthy, and rotting corpse of macroevolution are the necrophiliac puppeteers who are hindering the advancement of science and technology in the scientific community, not the creationists.
Click to expand...

Funny that you didn't mention medicine. You know a field that would involve biology? So you used examples outside of biology as "proof" that evolution is not useful. What next proof that astronomy is not useful because it can't be used to build a computer?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01
 
Macroevolution Needs Some Medicine

LibertyOfOne said:
Funny that you didn't mention medicine. You know a field that would involve biology? So you used examples outside of biology as "proof" that evolution is not useful. What next proof that astronomy is not useful because it can't be used to build a computer?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01
Click to expand...

When macroevolutionists work in medicine, they act as microevolutionists. Still, I would say that Darwinian evolution has done nothing to advance medicine. By the way, Darwinian evolution does not only deal with biology, either. Its theory has been expanded to other scientific disciplines as well.
 
Theocrat said:
When macroevolutionists work in medicine, they act as microevolutionists. Still, I would say that Darwinian evolution has done nothing to advance medicine. By the way, Darwinian evolution does not only deal with biology, either. Its theory has been expanded to other scientific disciplines as well.
Click to expand...

It's not Darwinian evolution. You know that theories evolve when there is new information to conform to right? We have the modern theory of evolution.

P.S I am going take me and my 98% chimp like genes and split.
 
LibertyOfOne said:
It's not Darwinian evolution. You know that theories evolve when there is new information to conform to right? We have the modern theory of evolution.

P.S I am going take me and my 98% chimp like genes and split.
Click to expand...
I would too, If I were you, I'm just getting warmed up again. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jmdrake
Ashli Babbitt was armed and dangerous
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
538
69360
6
ClaytonB
I don't care anymore
Replies
0
Views
130
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
osan
What Do We Do About Themme?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
ClaytonB
Yes, the church of Jesus is the extreme right-wing
Replies
5
Views
226
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Anti Federalist
Satanic Temple's "Christmas" display does not last three days in Concord NH
Replies
10
Views
4K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top