Jump to content

Anonymous Participant

Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Anonymous Participant

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Actually my goal is to force you the realization that what you think is science is in fact a new religion, and I abhor religious restraints being placed upon intellectual disciplines like science. We don't approach science with any preconceived notions about what we expect to find and staying within those parameters, and we don't exclude theories or hypothesis because they challenge our own religious beliefs, in your case atheism. I asked a question to induce thought and debate on the subject, and the result has been exposure of the fact that at least some people who call themselves scien
  2. The so called LGBT+?? agenda IS indeed a moral relativistic agenda that weakens the human resistance to being dominated. It also has another obvious agenda of population control by lowering the birth rate (and increasing the mortality rate) among the target population, whites. 1 out of 5 homosexuals in the US is said to be infected with the virus that causes AIDS according to CDC studies, and sexually transmitted diseases are over 60 times as prevalent overall. 2 out of 10 transsexuals end their own lives, and now both of these groups are allowed to adopt children. Children raised in homosexu
  3. Perhaps, but what also isn't "for science" is running your mouth about so called facts that you have no evidence of and claiming you do, or deriding a critic because he says you're wrong. I have a thought for you to ponder. Steven Hawking has allegedly came out in opposition to the concept of intelligent design, citing his doubt that any superior intelligence even notices our existence. He doesn't actually talk, he "speaks" through an electronic wheelchair that supposedly has a computer that can generate a voice from his thoughts, which are input into the device through subtle movement
  4. I have SPECIFICALLY stated that I DO NOT seek to explain the nature of a creator or have nay knowledge thereof. You ARE NOT certain how the term came into existence. I can say this with absolute certainty because I saw it being used as far back as the late 70's in conversation , Pual Harvey mentioned it on radio in the same period. it goes back to at least the 1800's: [Snip] https://evolutionnews.org/2014/06/on_the_origin_o_5/ Charles Darwin himself referred to “intelligent design” in a 1861 letter: One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions
  5. Intelligent design has been a pervasive belief among all noteworthy scientists in the history of the intellectual discipline that is science. It was never given a label because there was no need to, there was an almost universal consensus that precluded the need for debate on the subject in science. It wasn't until the atheist agenda seized control of science and converted it into some kind of new age religion that the debate began in earnest. I am not certain who created the specific label "intelligent design", and neither are you. NOR DOES IT MATTER. It is a succinct nomenclature rega
  6. Again, some creationists and coreligionists are obviously proponents of intelligent design, but not all proponents of intelligent design are creationists or coreligionists. The existence of non-scientists withing the ranks of intelligent design proponents is no different than the existence of non scientists supporting relativity.
  7. Intelligent design does not in of itself define a creator, nor does it attempt to. Not where real scientists are concerned. It simply states that there is an intelligent arrangement. How it came into being is another idea entirely independent of it's supposed reality, it is not necessary to prove the existence of a "creator" to support intelligent design theory. because we cannot yet comprehend what this intelligence is does not really matter, I think if we ever did we would ourselves define God. The existence or non existence of a "creator" are both un-falsifiable, and therefore are both
  8. 1) I believe the basic premise of the theory of evolution is correct. I also also believe based on empirical facts that it's existence as a valid , likley correct theory supports intelligent design. Evolution and intelligent design are wholly compatible, but not holy compatible. 2) the only agenda I have is empiricism as a basis of scientific inquiry, absent of preconceived beliefs on religious ideas which are not falsifiable and therefore non scientific It seems likely as we continue in this debate that eventually the proponents of the "non intelligent design presupposition"
  9. What is not surprising is how many so called scientists that are adamant about denying intelligent design and censoring it forcibly in science are also "moral relativists" or secular humanists who have a predisposition to moral degeneracy and opposition to long accepted social constructs of morality and ethics such as the importance of the family, the sanctity of individual human life and the adherence to concepts of right and wrong. It would seem that the underlying agenda is attacking and destroying traditional ideas of morality and ethics. As result of this agenda we now have deviant , me
  10. Why should I bother? What difference would it make? The point is you cannot use clearly biased "studies" as proof of Wikipedia's credibility. They are all well known to be part of the same secular humanist (atheist-nihilist) agenda, it's whats known as a "circle jerk".
  11. I am LITERALLY ROTFLMFAO! The Washington Post?Using the encyclopedia Britannica as a benchmark? There's no secular humanist agenda there, is there? Wow, I can't believe how ignorant some people can seem when they try to support nonsensical ideas.
  12. Isn't that the big bang theory? LMAO! That is such a great example of empirical proof....I'm CONVINCED NOW! not
  13. The problem with your treatise is that there is no real evidence that an actual mutation occurred, and that the moths DNA didn't already include the traits in a recessive state for the black variation. It is much more likely that like the domestic swine example, the DNA adaptation is an intelligent response to environmental factors that is already present in the existing DNA. The "Wikipedia" article DOES NOT prove a beneficial mutation occurred, it doesn't prove a mutation occurred. ALos, if I were you I would not use Wikipedia as a source for evidence or proof, since it is a user edited sourc
  14. I asked a question with this thread. I didn't make an assertion. I provided anecdotal evidence that perhaps at least with some people who believe they understand the scientific method and what science is are actually driven by religious faith based ideas that limit their ability to consider possibilities that conflict with their BELIEFS. There is no need to consider the existence of a personal God to entertain the possibility of intelligent design, and there is nothing inherently superstitious about such a belief. Who is brow beating who? Do you know what the psychological phenomenon c
  15. It is unlikely that mutations are the driving force behind evolution, since no mutation has ever been shown to result in a beneficial quality that makes an organism more fit to it's enviroment. It is more likely that evolution is an intelligent response built into DNA that allows for adaptations. Take for example the domesticated swine, released into the wild within 2 generations it has reverted to the wild state, with tusks and hairy body. It's built into the DNA to be able to adapt.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.