To me, ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up, while astrology has nothing going for it. In any case, what makes ID and astrology different is one has some legitimate backing, while the other is more or less just for quacks.
58 comments
To me , ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up,
That's your problem right there.
YOU are not the one to decide what is scientific or not. YOU are just an uneducated retard who get your manure from a 2000+ year old collection of goat herder and camel driver scifi and ID has no evidence to support it. None whatsoever!
and by astrology, you mean the very thing the Bible teaches against right? Oooohhh, you meant astronomy. Yeah, even then, completely different ends of the spectrum. Astronomy has no say in the "how we got here" question. It's an observational science.
Biology is that way ------->
[To me, ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up...]
Scientific data? Awesome! Let's see it!
Take your time; I'll wait.
" ... what makes ID and astrology different is one has some legitimate backing, while the other is more or less just for quacks."
Wait which is which again?
To me, ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up
Um, then, where is it?
while astrology has nothing going for it
Yeah, no kidding. But then again, I doubt you know the difference between astrology and astronomy.
In any case, what makes ID and astrology different is one has some legitimate backing, while the other is more or less just for quacks
So, which is which? I tend to think that both are for quacks, but that's just me.
There is no positive evidence for ID. It says nothing that creationist William Paley didn't say in his 1802 "watchmaker" argument (except for substituting the words "intelligent designer" for God - Paley at least was honest about his intentions). The whole "theory" is negative: "I can't see how evolution could have done this; therefore, there must have been an intelligent designer. It's one big "argument from personal incredulity" against evolution, coupled with a false dichotomy: "if evolution is false, ID must be true".
What?
They're BOTH horseshit.
You know, I also often confused Astronomy and Astrology, but then I turned 7 and my parents helped me look up 'big' words in the dictionary and I learned the difference. Haven't confused the two at all during the intervening 32 years...
ID is indeed just a bunch of window dressing to disguise your religions version of the creation myth.
Well, I have to admit, at least it's a somewhat original argument - thanks for making me smile, o village idiot!
Now that I think of it, this is not really an original argument as much as it is an original way to push a lie, to deceive and manipulate because YAW66 "knows better than us". It's a manipulation, and somewhere deep down YAW66 must know that, but he has a layer of self-deception in between and he never can acknowledge it. (I guess none of us are perfect and are all in denial of some part of reality or other.) It's interesting that fundamentalist religions, which really do incorporate a lot of clever psychology to stay entrenched, are able to manipulate people into being little sub-manipulators, without them dreaming of it. They all think they are acting on their own judgments.
"Finally there is a peer reviewed publication of ID scientific data!
Ok...where is it? "
Did you read the link? The guy went a hundred fucking post being asked to provide just that. All he could manage was afew essays that had never been touched by any scientific institute without Discovery, Creation or Genesis in the name. When it was pointed out that that peer-review doesnt mean "reviewed by abunch of people who already agree with you" he just pointed at true.origins over and over telling everyone to find his proof for him. This guys just a bottomless barrel of quotes.
one has some legitimate backing, while the other is more or less just for quacks.
Translation, I agree with one, therefore it's right.
ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up
So please tell us about these data.
"To me, ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up"
Yeah, you see, that's why you're an idiot jacka** instead of a respected scientist.
ID is dominated by deceit and lies. It does not have an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up. ID is just a convoluted rehash of legitimate biologists' hard work that has been contorted out of recognition and forced through so many hoops, in a forlorn effort to make it fit the creationist view of biblical inerrancy, that it no longer has any validity as original research.
what makes ID and astrology different is one has some legitimate backing, while the other is more or less just for quacks.
All right, I give up. I cry "uncle". Which one is which now?
Frogflayer, I was going to say YouAreWinnar66 is a virgo...
And, considering that YouAreWinnar66 never told us what ID stands for, I suppose there is a fair amount of scientific support for the Incompetent Design theory, isn't there? Where do we begin? The embryonic formation of human testes that leads to the risk of hernias later in life? Or rodent teeth that, if left to grow unchecked, will pierce the brain........
"what makes ID and astrology different is one has some legitimate backing, while the other is more or less just for quacks."
Yeah, astrology does have a bit of a legitimate backing. I mean, the moon does have a slight gravitational effect on the Earth, and the 'motion' of the stars co-incide with the seasons and such.
Horoscopes are published daily in most major newspapers all around the country. I guess you can call that 'legitimate backing'.
We can, by elimination, conclude which one is for quacks.
ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up
I keep hearing this, and no-one even puts so much as a link to a page with evidence for ID. It's always religious claptrap, or debunked arguments against evolution.
When I was in newspapers, the astrology editor died one day (she didn't see that coming!). So the editor asked around the newsroom for a volunteer, and the job went to one of the sports sub-editors who was bored. He went on to make a fortune, on the basis of his totally fabricated horoscopes.
Maybe I could do the same for ID? Just make it all up?
Dammit, there are already people doing that.
You can expect a fucking awful February, everybody it's in the stars. God designed it that way. So sayonara, you silly bankers.
fergus
To me, ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up
You're opinion of ID is irrelavent. You do not decide what is and is not evidence. ID has no scientific data to back it up because no ID proponent can ever do any experiments that could prove or disprove ID. They can't, it's not a scientific theory, it makes no predictions, it has no experiments to conduct, it is simply an assertion of special creation combined with evolution denial
while astrology has nothing going for it
Well at least you got that right.
In any case, what makes ID and astrology different is one has some legitimate backing while the other is more or less just for quacks.
No, neither one does. One is an assertion that the position of celestial bodies can cause an effect on people, the other is an assertion that life had to be created by an external intelligent angency because it seems complex. At least astrology can be tested and proved to be wrong, ID can't even be tested because it makes no predictions, just an assertion that at one point a transcendent intelligent being or beings created all life, you can't test that. ID is nothing more than biblical creationism in a cheap lab coat.
Astrology is the effect your birth date, birth place and time of birth have on you, mixed with the effects of the moon, sun and various planets on you throughout the course of your life. Astrology is a form of divination, not a religion. There is no Church of Astrology. It is simply a belief, that, a lot of people lend credence to.
There are people who live by the charts they draw up of their mundane, natal and other various horoscopes. Seemingly, they go through life without a problem.
Creationist and ID followers however, can't just seem to be OK living their life their own way and believing in what they want.
No astrologist has ever tried to force convert my beliefs. They simply do it whether I want to, or not. IDiots however, go ape-shit bananas if I don't profess the truth of creationism.
I'll take astrology over creationism any day. Even done a bit of the casting myself. Once you figure out all the damn math, it makes more sense then 6 day creationism ever did.
"To me, ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up"
Where? I've looked ( the webs a wonderful thing) and I've only found unsubstantiated bullshit.
Astrology at least follows the patterns of stars which has taught us much. That the stars at your day of birth control your life? No. That's religion again
"To me, ID theory is legitimate and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up"
Where? I've looked ( the webs a wonderful thing) and I've only found unsubstantiated bullshit.
Astrology at least follows the patterns of stars which has taught us much. That the stars at your day of birth control your life? No. That's religion again
“To me, ID theory is legitimate”
“and has an enormous amount of scientific data backing it up”
"while astrology has nothing going for it.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
