|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:35 pm
Creationism... Intelligent Design...
To me they seem the same. I know that they're 'different', or at least they're supposed to be, but I just can't see it. The same basic message, the same ferocious supporters.
Is it just me, or is Intelligent Design just Creationism in a pretty new dress?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:39 pm
it is the same its just religious nutso's feel the need to be more modern or some s**t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:11 am
Intelliegent design is less overtly christian in nature. It is an attempt to try to remove as much religion from creationism as possible in order to be able to push it into various parts of everydays life. Schools in particular.
It is, quite simple, the same old s**t with a different shovel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:02 pm
puresilver Creationism... Intelligent Design...
To me they seem the same. I know that they're 'different', or at least they're supposed to be, but I just can't see it. The same basic message, the same ferocious supporters.
Is it just me, or is Intelligent Design just Creationism in a pretty new dress? Pretty much. See it as Creationism, the puesdoscientific sequel. Starring George W. Bush as George W. Bush and retarded Christians as retarded Christians. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:47 pm
TheFiresOfStupid puresilver Creationism... Intelligent Design...
To me they seem the same. I know that they're 'different', or at least they're supposed to be, but I just can't see it. The same basic message, the same ferocious supporters.
Is it just me, or is Intelligent Design just Creationism in a pretty new dress? Pretty much. See it as Creationism, the puesdoscientific sequel. Starring George W. Bush as George W. Bush and retarded Christians as retarded Christians. ^_^ dont get me started on that moron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:53 pm
Let me give you a little analogy.
Let's say...you have a rather crappy product that's gotten a nice little fan club of its own. But you decide that you don't like your competitors' success, and your fan club is already going at all lengths to get others to buy this product, including boycotting the competitors and getting their school systems and stores to only stock your product.
This isn't enough for your little product, so you rework the packaging, put a pretty little bow on it, and give it a different name, marketing it to your competitors' former clients now, as well.
There are people out there, though... People who don't see through this. People who don't buy what you think is a clever ruse. They spread the word. They let others know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:33 pm
Yep. For fun, look at the passage from Of Pandas and People that defined Creationism/ID/Spontaneous Generation (the newest buzzword).
It is literally the exact same passage each time with the pertinent word dropped in, the sole exception being a slight add-on sentence at the end in the latest rewrite (with the rest of the paragraph left intact).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:58 pm
A_L_R Yep. For fun, look at the passage from Of Pandas and People that defined Creationism/ID/Spontaneous Generation (the newest buzzword). It is literally the exact same passage each time with the pertinent word dropped in, the sole exception being a slight add-on sentence at the end in the latest rewrite (with the rest of the paragraph left intact). Wait, wasn't "Spontaneous Generation" disproved over 300 years ago. I'm not talking about the Christian version, I'm talking about the flies magically spawning from rotting meat version. I think the Christian faith just walked straight into that one. rofl As for the observation that Creationism and Intelligent Design are almost identical, it's perfectly logical why they'd try to dress it up. What they're trying to do is convince non-Christians to believe in these crackpot theories as well. After all, historically, churches only serve three purposes: 1) Give people hope (in an entity who cannot be seen or heard) 2) Collect money for missionaries, Crusades, etc. 3) Expand said religion indefinitely
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:56 pm
Shouri Shokkou Wait, wasn't "Spontaneous Generation" disproved over 300 years ago. Yes, it was. rofl And on that note, an oldie-but-goodie: Serpens The best basis for modern political platform is a book written thousands of years ago by people who thought that rats materialized out of garbage. Shouri Shokkou As for the observation that Creationism and Intelligent Design are almost identical, it's perfectly logical why they'd try to dress it up. What they're trying to do is convince non-Christians to believe in these crackpot theories as well. Eh, not really. What they're trying to do is convince "moderate" Christians, and bully them into quiescence. After all, it's still Science, right? sweatdrop The purpose of it is to act as a wedge they can later twist further, not as a final result: they want to debase the schools and get religion in. Creationism is a means, not an end. Shouri Shokkou After all, historically, churches only serve three purposes: I'm going to stop you here, because you're arguing from a modern standpoint rather than a historical one. The purpose of religion is to explain the unknown, and the purpose of religious gathering (like a Church) is to act as a social gathering-place for like-minded people, ostenibly to discuss their religion. Naturally, like everything else, religion has been exploited since day one by those in search of power who realised they could get it under a facade of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:29 pm
Intelligent Design/=/Creationism
Angel dust/=/Phencyclidine
However you dress it up, it's still the same ugly thing. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:34 am
Yeah but you must realise that the majority of the population will eat the s**t if it's in a pretty new package.
Even I'm guilty of that occassionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:21 pm
Why call it INTELLIGENT design? Consider the human body:
1. We eat, breathe, talk, and drink through the same hole. Choking causes many casualties.
2. The appendix stops functioning after infancy and then becomes a welcome house for appendixitis.
3. Toes, as you know, are for supporting our bodies when we reach higher. But the 5th toe does no such thing.
4. Silent killers. Why couldn't we have easily readable bioguages?
5. Knees. I hate bumping them. Don't you?
6. We urinate and reproduce with the same orfice. If it gets infected, it gets extremely hard to do either of these vulgar yet neccesary processes.
7. A baby cries. It attracts predators. Predators eat baby (and possibly mother). Baby is helpless for about five years. Why can't we mature faster?
So, what I'm trying to say that whatever being or process that "designed us" was a lack of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:58 am
it's just a guise for christians to make a new branch of science (well a fake science)and get inside the schools and brainwash kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:25 am
Intelligent Design is so last year. The new buzzword is Critical Analysis, which has nothing to do with either Creationism or Intelligent design... oops, maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:27 am
Aye, but it'll take a while for that one to filter down to the bottom feeders of the creationist movement.
I think we'll be seeing a lot of ID for a while to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
