- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
There's no "I didn't even know about it until yesterday . . . and it's good for a laugh" option on your poll
There's no "I didn't even know about it until yesterday . . . and it's good for a laugh" option on your poll
Holy sheez! Just look up abortion on this site, and prepare to laugh
Of all abortion supporters they could have chosen, they chose Hitler... Two of the seven pictures are of Hitler...
See this is what I don't like about Conservapedia. When it comes to issues that conservatives are either strongly for or strongly against, there is clear bias in their assessment. From what I've seen, other types of articles have better information.
And that's not also true for liberals?
Out of curiosity I looked up aninism on conservapedia and found nothing. Then I looked up Animism and found this:
Not that I am trying to stick up for them but they don't say anything about it being a science.
I'm talking about Conservapedia here, not conservatives and liberals.
Do you know what Intelligent Design is? Do you understand how principly the notion of "can't explain the eye now = Goddidit" = "can't explain lightning = Zeus" is the same thing?
What's that have to do with the claim that conservapedia says that animism is a provable science? It doesn't say that, at least not that I could find.
Legal disclaimer: I don't give a damn about conservapedia.
Did you read the quote you quoted?
Yeah, I did. It defines animism as a belief, not a "provable science". Did you read it?
Did you read the article on Intelligent Design?
Now re-read my post. And then answer.
I found no reference to animism in the intelligent design article.
So you don't understand how principly the notion of "can't explain the eye now = Goddidit" = "can't explain lightning = Zeus" is the same thing?
Of course I do, this little sub-thread is a result of you saying " They say animism is a testable science." Which it doesn't. You threw in Intelligent Design later, which has nothing to do with your original statement.
You seem to not understand that Intelligent Design is Aninism. Apparently "can't explain the eye now = Goddidit" = "can't explain lightning = Zeus" that didn't tip you off to that.
No, it's not.
Actually it is.
Aninism explains natural phenomena that could not be explained at the time, such as lightning and the rainy season to anima, or functionally spirits generally of the supernatural state.
Intelligent design argues that because some things are too complex to arise on their own and because we can't explain how they got there, something (namely supernatural) was the cause.
The underlying logic is identical.
A belief that argues Goddidit because we can't explain how a complex organ like an eye formed is the same belief that Zeus throws lightning because we couldn't explain how it happened back then.
Intelligent Design is nothing more then repackaged Aninism. Therefore, Conservapedia arguing that Intelligent Design is real science has argued that Aninism is real science.
That's a huge stretch that makes no real sense. That's like saying that air and water are the same thing becuase they both contain oxygen.
Uh, how is it a huge stretch? Animism explains phenomena that couldn't be explained to supernatural beings. Intelligent design explains phenomena that can't be explained to a supernatural beings.
How are they different aside the fact that in the second sentence it's Animism and in the third its ID?