314
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 112:
Line 112: + + + +
no edit summary
::: I agree that it (MatteeNeutra's post) doesn't make sense. You show them to both be the same (non-scientific) by showing their similarities, not contrasting them. But more to the point, the two are rarely if ever shown to be similar. Rather, they are lumped together as though they are both non-scientific, but with no attempt to actually demonstrate that. And that is the very issue being objected to here. Indeed, your argument itself is based on the idea that ID is not scientific, which of course creationists and ID people don't agree with, so you are basing your argument on your presumptions. Of course I would laugh at someone trying to convince me that the Earth was flat (actually, I probably wouldn't laugh, I would patiently try and show them they were wrong), because that the Earth is round is readily demonstrable, unlike ideas from the past about how things came to be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I agree that it (MatteeNeutra's post) doesn't make sense. You show them to both be the same (non-scientific) by showing their similarities, not contrasting them. But more to the point, the two are rarely if ever shown to be similar. Rather, they are lumped together as though they are both non-scientific, but with no attempt to actually demonstrate that. And that is the very issue being objected to here. Indeed, your argument itself is based on the idea that ID is not scientific, which of course creationists and ID people don't agree with, so you are basing your argument on your presumptions. Of course I would laugh at someone trying to convince me that the Earth was flat (actually, I probably wouldn't laugh, I would patiently try and show them they were wrong), because that the Earth is round is readily demonstrable, unlike ideas from the past about how things came to be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The point I was making is that the continual readiness to say that it is evolutionists who are making fun of Christians is wrong. The term "evolutionist" itself is such a huge umbrella term on this site that it is hard to know exactly what people mean by it. I think a clarification in this article and perhaps elsewhere on this site is in order.
::::Your other point about "creationists and ID people" not agreeing that ID is not a science is fairly irrelevant. If we go by general consensus (which, given that both mine and your countries are Democracy's, seems like a good idea) we can determine that ID is not a scientific theory. I'm not disrespecting ID by saying that! Hell, its a neat theory and if people want to believe it then kudos to them; it just isn't science. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 20:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)