Does anybody really believe in Creationism (sorry, Intelligent Design) anymore?

[Achilles]

What do you mean by same bag?

Saying that you're against a specific flavor of religion being taught in school is not the same thing as saying that you're against educating young people about a variety of religions.

 

Don't worry about the whole conform thing. Like I saidsymantecs. I being an analytical minded individual can get a little nit picky about word choices and meaningless stuff like that. Maybe the bag thing you said is nothing too.

I don't know what any of this means.

 

And I'm not being biased.

You are being biased. Either you are unaware of it and might benefit by ditching the defensive posture and investing in some introspection, or you are aware of it and are currently guilty of trolling. At this point, I don't think you are a troll.

 

Just because I don't agree or say I disagree with you or whatever doesn't make me a creationist or a person on the religious side. It does make me one who is going to bring up this side's contradiction, an apposing view to what they might say.

And I find this hard to believe because you haven't raised any contradictions regarding the "science side". Your comments have consistently demonstrated a lack of general understanding of what the "science side" is.

 

I'm not going to fault you for not knowing, however I do find it a little frustrating that you keep resisting any effort made to help educate you. At some point, it might make one think that you would prefer willfull ignorance.

 

But in no way am I going to pick your side or the religious' side.

"My" side, huh?

 

All it would do is create an endless debate without end where no side is going to change the other's mind.

It's too bad reasonable people can't just agree to look at the evidence and accept whatever conclusion it support, huh?

 

The point is you don't know if I am for your view, Creationialsm's view, ifI am putting on a front, ifI am role playing, or if I am actually supporting you, but just am not saying it, or not. The thing is I really don't care if you think I am apposing you. It is not my intent. My intent in this thread is to not give into either side's bait. I don't care for a non constructive argument.

Interestingly, you would appear to have just admitted that you're here to do nothing but post non-constructive arguments.

 

I am only posting here on these political threads recently so that both sides can somehow toss their biases aside and come to a compromise to appease the two sides. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'd like to think I'm not.

And I've repeatedly pointed out that there is no compromise here.

 

Please take your windmills elsewhere.

 

So with doctorenation you can't think of anything at all.

With regards to science? No, I cannot. Because by its very nature, science can't indoctrinate. If someone seeks to indoctrinate, then they aren't doing science. It's pretty simple really.

 

Religion can have corruption in it how can science not have that too.

Because "bad science" isn't science at all. There is only one way to do science: Correctly.

 

Sure one can make mistakes, etc, but other scientists always catch this. Science is self-correcting.

 

Be consistent. Both have human beings in it. Al humans can be corrupt, dishonest, have agenda, twist word, faine ignorance, and can have some political agenda. And you honestly come up with one.

Does 2+2 ever equal something other than 4?

 

Humans do math, right? And humans can be corrupt, dishonest, have agendas, twist words, feign ignorance, etc, right? Yet 2+2 always somehow manages to equal 4. Be consistent, indeed.

 

Does religion like science have the capacity for corruption, political agenda, and indoctrination?

I don't really have to answer this, correct?

 

Are you honestly saying that companies can have indoctrination and be corrupt, Religion can be corrupt, but science cannot is incapable of corruption and indoctrination?

Correct. Because the moment any of those things happens, science isn't being done anymore.

 

You're trying to tie shades of grey to something that truly is either black or white. It won't work.

 

You gave an example of how those in the Creationalism realm can indoctrinate, but what about in the scientific realm. I applauded that you gave an example for the one, now please provide for another meaning the other sides.

I can't because there isn't one.

 

Both can do indoctrination.

So you keep insisting. If you're so confident of your position, why don't you provide an example? The onus is not on my to make your point for you.

 

I would like to have 1 example for both.

I would like to have a million dollars.

 

Does eugenics ring a bell for one side.

Relevance?

 

I should think the same way one can be "drowned" in thirst.

Ah. Thanks

 

Visit your local library and pick up a copy of Miller's Biology (Ken Miller is devoutly religious, by the way, and just as devout an advocate of evolution).

SD, while you're there, pick up Only a Theory also by Dr. Miller. It was written specifically to address the arguments you seem to be advocating here.

[SD Nihil]

Ah. I do not wish to be educated by either side. Again I choose not to pick a side. Now I know either side would view that not picking their side as picking the other. And either will call me names and come to their own conclusions, say I'm frusterating in their opinions. They wil wish me to do as they wish to pick a side.

 

Good Religon bad Religon is still Religon. Oh the cult leader tells people to give him all their money and take a pill while waiting for the mother ship. It's still a cult which is religous. Doesn't make it not religon. I guess it's how they choose to distance themselves from it. Man is responsible for all sorts of wrongs or ills. It depends on perspective and sometimes mental status. Some see themselves as visionaries. Others see them as nuts. Science ah bad science, okay science. I still hear the word science. Ugenics. Maybe if we take the Jew and do this experiment maybe they'll die this way or that way. Ah conclusion heart exploded. Whereas in this instance they died of disease. Conclusions theories, hypootosis, all in Germany though science. Yes bad science. Still I hear the word science. Again like religon I guess it's how you choose to distance yourself from it by saying it's not religon or science at all. Again man is responsible for all sorts of evils. Evil again that is a matter of perspective. I wonder if the Christian religon's Satan considers himself not evil. I wonder if scientists under Hitler considered themselves evil or part of a greater purpose. Ah perspective.

[EnderWiggin]

Again I choose not to pick a side.

 

What? There's not a middle ground: Either Creationism should be taught in schools or not. There's no third option.

 

Either creationism can be considered science or it cannot. There is no third option.

 

"Perception" has nothing to do with the factual basis of the 6-day, 6000 yr old wold Christian creationism myth. Regardless of your opinion, it is a normative question, and as such, has one and only one true answer.

 

Are you being intentionally dense or is there a specific reason as to why you don't understand that concept?

 

_EW_

[SkinWalker]

Ah. I do not wish to be educated by either side.

 

In that case, further posts by yourself in this thread will be considered off-topic and trolling and, thus, deleted. Please PM me if you have questions or concerns with this.