Drtomaso wrote: Nonsense. Once again, here are the differences: Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't. Creationism claims the earth is 6,000- 10,000 years old. ID doesn't dispute the earth is 3.5-4 billion years old. Creationism claims the earthâs geology can be explained primarily by a worldwide flood. ID doesn't. Creationism claims that "Created kinds" of plants and animals can vary only within fixed limits. ID doesn't make this claim. Creationism rejects common ancestry. ID doesn't. Creationism is anti-evolution. ID isn't. The only way the ID critics can claim ID advocates are creationists is to define creationist in such a way that it would apply to theistic evolutionists, biological Darwinists who embrace cosmological design, and a wide variety of scholars and ordinary citizens who reject materialism as the only worldview that counts as rational or âscientific.â It seems that only atheists fall outside the ID critics definition of creationist.
See the "arguments" the atheists are stuck with? LOL! What next, Barney Rubble the Atheist explaining how the dinosaurs evolved?
ID most certainly does posit a supernatural creator. If the creator is natural, one is reduced to an ad infinitum argument: what created the creator? ID proponents by and large have already admitted to this. One form of creationism makes this claim. Those would be the extremely hardcore biblical literalists. Most creationists accept the fact that the Earth is considerably older. We call this particular breed of moron an 'Old Earth Creationist'. It was exactly this kind that founded the 'Creation Science' movement, that as we know, morphed into the 'Intelligent Design' movement by doing a global search-and-replace on all their propaganda after the SCOTUS handed them their a$$e$. Again, this has everything to do with biblical literalism and little to do with creationism. Creationists believe that life on earth was created by God. If we were to go by sheer numbers alone, the average creationist wouldnt even be Christian- they'd be Muslim. There is, however, no getting around the fact that Creationism, and by extension Intelligent Design, is a theological argument. ID just likes to dress it up in empirical sounding fallacies. If ID is pro-evolution, why are we having this debate? Evolution wins! Teach evolution and shut up about the stuff thats based on logical fallacy. If you want to believe in something that can never be empirically observed, go ahead. Just dont teach it to my kids- I want them to actually be employable. Atheism has nothing to do with this. If you had said "agnostic for the purposes of empirical observation" you would have been close. Science doesnt care what you believe. It doesnt care what you worship. It doesnt care if you pray once a day, five times, or have a special, personal relationship with Jesus. It only cares what you can observe, test, reproduce. Many scientists throughout history have been theistic- they believed in God. But when they put their white lab coats on, broke out the test tubes and bunsen burners, they suspended the theological side, and worked solely with the empirical. Materialism is the only worldview that counts, because its the only world we can observe. The only people railing against 'materialism' or 'materialistic naturalism' are theists.
Materialism is the only worldview that counts, because its the only world we can observe. The only people railing against 'materialism' or 'materialistic naturalism' are theists. Materialism is the only world view that counts to materialists...
Admittedly. Next time you get an infection, please refrain from using any cure that was developed based on this nasty nasty dreaded materialism. Just remember that when you're gone, we materialists get your stuff.
That's your problem, you have only materialism... Nothing precludes taking care of this world, and having a belief that there is something more...
I understand the dim witted are unable to multitask.... Guess they were born that way, their mind can only be on the ground, and not in the air at the same time...
I never said you couldnt be both. Most scientists in history have believed very strongly in God. But they checked that belief at the door when it was time to go about the business of science- which when you get down to it is the business of proving things empirically to other people. Our economy, health, well being, almost everything we enjoy in the modern world arises from this ability to 'multitask' and the realization that non-materialistic explanations have no explanatory power in science. Believe what you want. I wont fault you for it. Hell, I'd even pick up a rifle and fight to defend your right to do so. But understand that science is our way forward, and these non-naturalistic explanations have been around for hundreds of years. They have been discarded by scientists when they act as scientists, because, while you may enjoy them, they have no explanatory power.