(October 30, 2015 at 12:47 am)jenny1972 Wrote: actually its more than just one guys 'random hunch'
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. Intelligent Design is not the same as creationism (intelligentdesign.org)
(October 30, 2015 at 12:35 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: It's the sticker from the books which triggered the whole case. It's amazing that you didn't read anything other than what confirmed your biased position... which, ironically, is the reason they were there.
fine but i wasnt quoting the texbook sticker i was quoting the actual judges ruling
No, honey, you were quoting where the judge cited the sticker that was placed on the books by the Intelligent Design proponents, which was the entire reason the court was convened. He HAS to mention that statement in his ruling, because it's literally the reason they were all gathered there for him to have a trial at all.
You quite literally quoted the only part of his statement that wasn't debunking that passage under discussion!
You zoomed right to it, despite ALL the rest of the stuff the judge said against it, because you wanted to support that idea. And you tell me we're biased!?! That's not being open-minded. That's the opposite of that, like Intelligent Design "openness" is the opposite of science.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
