Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

I think the best thing would be for you to go back and edit the content to become "content withdrawn".Admins do not edit others messages for content, with perhaps very rare exceptions.Adminnemooseus

---

quote:

---

The buzsaw contention is that if ID exists, involving the existence in the universe of higher intelligence than is normally observed on this one little speck of a planet called earth, it can be regarded as scientific. Like evolution, until the evidence of it is empirically falsified, then and only then does it cease to be science.

---

The problem with ID, buz, is that it is based entirely upon a lack of positive evidence. All of the proposed evidence for ID has already been falsified, or is simply not falsifiable in the first place since it involves the actions of the supernatural.

In answer to the OP, nah. It's just most IDers or people prone to ID have been banned or otherwise run off, imo.

Nope. All the positive evidence points to ID, especially the informational aspects of QM, which is the foundation of matter and thus chemistry, which underlies biology.

Funny that you've never been able to prove that. Why is it that when we ask you for all this "positive evidence", you devolve into personal attacks and empty assertions?Like you're going to do in your reply to this post?

The thing that gets missed in this is that the argument cuts both ways.
Richard Dawkins uses science to support his belief in Atheism. He even invented the idea that we have memes without any scientific evidence for them.ID is neither pro evolution or anti evolution. ID is not science. ID just makes the argument that with everything considered reason should lead us to believe that there is an intelligent designer behind our existence.Richard Dawkins regards evolution and sees random chance and natural selection whereas Francis Collins regards evolution as the handiwork of God.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Only insofar as the validity of evolution removes one of the more popular arguments for the existence of God. "Meme" simply refers to an idea which passes from person to person. There is ample evidence for their existence: the question is whether there is a good analogy between memes and genes. I think not: memes which pass by vertical transmission (parents to children) are like genes; those which pass by horizontal transmission (amongst a peer group) are more like viruses. Not according to its proponents."Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings." --- Of Pandas And People

quote:

---

The thing that gets missed in this is that the argument cuts both ways.
Richard Dawkins uses science to support his belief in Atheism. He even invented the idea that we have memes without any scientific evidence for them.

---

But is Dawkins trying to get his ideas inserted into Science education? I don't know about the states or Canada but he does not get a mention here and I've seen no evidence he's trying to get his ideas inserted into the timetable (but I could be wrong).

quote:

---

Nope. All the positive evidence points to ID, especially the informational aspects of QM, which is the foundation of matter and thus chemistry, which underlies biology.

---

All of it, huh?Well cool.I'll be the first to congratulate you when you, or some other IDer, collects his or her Nobel Prize in Stockholm.

No, Dawkins' Atheism is not taught in public school science classrooms in the US.

Not really. He uses evolution to prove that God is not necessary. This is then extrapolated into; because he isn't necessary he doesn't exist. But he still trys to make it scientific which is just as wrong as some proponents of ID who try to make ID scientific. I would say; not according to some of its proponents.Edited by GDR, : typo

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

GDR As with any new idea the hypothesis is invoked to offer a tentative explanation for an observed pattern and ,hence, is scientific.That memes are succesfully employed to aid in explaining cultural proclivities is invalidated in what way in your view? Can you offer a better model to show that the concept of meme is incorrect and thus wrong? You attack Dawkins idea of memes because you say that it supports his atheism yet fail to elaborate on your assumption. If the world we investigate supports Dawkins position and you disagree because you feel that God has a hand in it then you must take up your disagreement with God and quit executing a arguementum ad hominem against Dawkins.If Dawkins is successful in positing a natural means of explanation to account for the multi dimensionality of human culture and transmission of ideas and is succesful in doing so, you will not tear apart the validity of the hypothesis by attacking the man but only by showing the inability of the idea to account for these cultural activities we have. However, Richard is fully capable of giving an account of how random chance and natural selection are sufficient and in most cases necessary to explain the world we observe while Francis Collins offers only his belief that it is otherwise.
Since the facts tend to support Dawkins empirically one must wonder why a God would put roadblocks in the pursuit of evidence for its existence. Since the contention that a God exists is not demonstratable you cannot hold a position that the world need be created by God{ though you are free to consider it on as a matter of faith} since you have neither logical nor empirical support for your contention.
You seriously have to offer a far greater standard of arguement to be convincing because the philosphical notions that anyone has are not made more ,but less, viable by ignoring the facts of the world as we observe them.

---

Dear Mrs Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.Best wishes, Richard Feynman.

I think you'd be closer to the truth if you said; not according to most of it's proponents.(though how to count this isn't clear to me)

quote:

---

ID is neither pro evolution or anti evolution

---

If ID isn't "anti evolution" then can you tell me why ID proponents spend more time attacking evolution than developing their own proposals ?

Perhaps a bit unfair. The majority of people who consider themselves ID proponents are likely either deists or theistic evolutionists, and they do not spend any time attacking evolution, nor do they try to inject their ID views into the classroom.