Originally posted by DigiMark007
In any case, if anyone is interested in formal debunking and proactive responses to Stein's ludicrous film, the Sketipcs society has devoted a number of podcasts, articles, and space in their latest issue to addressing it. It includes a letter from Richard Dawkins to a man who was influenced by the movie and channeled the anger in inspired within him into a letter to Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic).
Before commenting on the quote above, I'd like to make a statement on an entirely different topic, namely, Ben Stein.
Who cares about Ben Stein?! It seems to me, that Naturalists are more concerned over him than so-called Creationists! Call him a fruit-cake or a genius, I couldn't care less, and I assume most Creationists have mutual feelings, not to mention the majority of Americans; it is the "fanatics," who resort to such nonsense!! They are just like the media covering the presidential campaign: he/she did this, he/she did that (nip-picking BS)!! Change the record, already!!! For crying out loud, the opening of the video posted by Da Pittman, dealt with movie sales/reviews... as if the general population has the smarts (or even cares) to know the truth about the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate clash. 40 Year Old Virgin sold more tickets... get a life!!!! If so much of what the movie entails can be disputed by scientific means, why resort to movie sales/reviews?! Are you kidding me!!! Talk about an agenda!!! Talk about, "setting the mood!!!" Why not stick to the facts?!!!
(grabbing a beer)
Now... about the quote posted by DigiMark007:
In any case, if anyone is interested in formal debunking and proactive responses to Stein's ludicrous film, the Sketipcs society has devoted a number of podcasts, articles, and space in their latest issue to addressing it. It includes a letter from Richard Dawkins to a man who was influenced by the movie and channeled the anger in inspired within him into a letter to Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic).
With all due respect, the "Skeptics Society" website, presumably having podcasts and articles reaching the Oort Cloud, as you claim, for those "interested in formal debunking and proactive responses to Stein's ludicrous film," has nothing to offer, at least, not directly!
Here are the hard facts, and I present them to open your minds, not to be "Mr. know-it-all," as some have claimed of me:
One of the most successful texts of biochemistry over the past several decades was written in 1970 by Albert Lehninger, a professor of biophysics at Johns Hopkins University, and has been updated several times over the years. On the first page of the first chapter of his first text book, Lehninger mentions evolution. He asks why the biomolecules that occur in virtually all cells appear to be extraordinarily well-fitted to their tasks:
In this chapter, the first in a series of 12 devoted to the structures and properties of the major classes of biomolecules, we shall develop the idea that biomolecules should be studied from two points of view. We must of course examine their structure and properties as we would those of non-biological molecules, by the principles and approaches used in classical chemistry. But we must also examine them in the light of the hypothesis that biomolecules are the products of evolutionary selection, that they may be the fittest possible molecules for their biological function.
Lehninger, a fine teacher, was passing on to his students, the world view of biochemical professionals -- that evolution is important for understanding biochemistry, that it is one of just two "points of view" by which they must study the molecules of life. Although a callow student might take Lehninger's word for it, a dispassionate observer would look for evidence of evolution's importance to the study of biochemistry. An excellent place to start is the book's index.
Lehninger provided a very detailed index in his book to help students readily find information. Many topics in the index have multiple entries, because they must be considered in various contexts. For example ribosomes have 21 entries in the index of Lehninger's first edition; photosynthesis has 26 entries; the bacterium e. coli has 42 entries; and under "proteins" are entered 70 references. In all, there are nearly 6,000 entries in the index, but only two under the heading of evolution under the heading of "evolution." The first citation is in a discussion of the sequences of proteins; as discussed earlier, however, all those sequence data can be used to infer relationships, that cannot be used to determine how a complex biochemical structure originated. Lehninger's second reference is to a chapter on the origin of life in which he discusses proteinoids and other topics that have not stood the test of time.
With just two citations out of 6,000, Lehninger's teacherly advice to his students concerning the importance of evolution to the students is belied by his index. In it Lehninger included virtually everything of relevance to biochemistry. Apparently, though, evolution is rarely a relevant topic.
Lehninger published a new edition of his text in 1982; its index contains just two references to evolution out of 7,000 entries. After Lehninger died in 1986 Michael Cox and David Nelson of the University of Wisconsin updated and rewrote the 1982 text. In the preface the new authors include the following under a list of goals:
To project a clear and repeated emphasis on major themes, especially those relating to evolution, thermodynamics, regulation, and the relationship between structure and function.
Indeed, in the index of the new edition, there are 22 references to evolution out of a total of 8,000, an increase of more than tenfold from the last edition. But when we get past origin-of-life chemistry and sequence comparisons (the two references in Lehninger's earlier text), we find that the new edition uses the word evolution as a wand to wave over mysteries. For example, one citation is to "evolution, adaptation of sperm whales." When we flip to the indicated page, we learn that sperm whale have several tons of oil in their heads which becomes more dense at colder temperatures. This allows the whale to match the density of the water at the great depths where it often dives and so swim more easily. After describing the whale the textbook remarks, "Thus we see in the sperm whale a remarkable anatomical and biochemical adaptation, perfected by evolution." But that single line is all that's said! The whale is stamped "perfected by evolution," and everybody goes home. The authors make no attempt to explain how the sperm whale came to have the structure it has. Nothing else is said!!!!
Point being, do not come off as if the "Skeptics Society" has more to offer, that hasn't already been stated!!!! Evolution has much to offer in the sciences, but Evolutionary theory is incomplete, and that is just being honest!!!!"
Originally posted by ushomefreeStop posting like a 2 year old kid and knock it off with the over sized text.
Before commenting on the quote above, I'd like to make a statement on an entirely different topic, namely, Ben Stein.Who cares about Ben Stein?! It seems to me, that Naturalists are more concerned over him than so-called Creationists! Call him a fruit-cake or a genius, I couldn't care less, and I assume most Creationists have mutual feelings, not to mention the majority of Americans; it is the "fanatics," who resort to such nonsense!! They are just like the media covering the presidential campaign: he/she did this, he/she did that (nip-picking BS)!! Change the record, already!!! For crying out loud, the opening of the video posted by Da Pittman, dealt with movie sales/reviews... as if the general population has the smarts (or even cares) to know the truth about the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate clash. 40 Year Old Virgin sold more tickets... get a life!!!! If so much of what the movie entails can be disputed by scientific means, why resort to movie sales/reviews?! Are you kidding me!!! Talk about an agenda!!! Talk about, "setting the mood!!!" Why not stick to the facts?!!!
[b](grabbing a beer)
Now... about the quote posted by DigiMark007:
With all due respect, the "Skeptics Society" website, presumably having podcasts and articles reaching the Oort Cloud, as you claim, for those "interested in formal debunking and proactive responses to Stein's ludicrous film," has nothing to offer, at least, not directly!
Here are the hard facts, and I present them to open your minds, not to be "Mr. know-it-all," as some have claimed of me:
One of the most successful texts of biochemistry over the past several decades was written in 1970 by Albert Lehninger, a professor of biophysics at Johns Hopkins University, and has been updated several times over the years. On the first page of the first chapter of his first text book, Lehninger mentions evolution. He asks why the biomolecules that occur in virtually all cells appear to be extraordinarily well-fitted to their tasks:
In this chapter, the first in a series of 12 devoted to the structures and properties of the major classes of biomolecules, we shall develop the idea that biomolecules should be studied from two points of view. We must of course examine their structure and properties as we would those of non-biological molecules, by the principles and approaches used in classical chemistry. But we must also examine them in the light of the hypothesis that biomolecules are the products of evolutionary selection, that they may be the fittest possible molecules for their biological function.
Lehninger, a fine teacher, was passing on to his students, the world view of biochemical professionals -- that evolution is important for understanding biochemistry, that it is one of just two "points of view" by which they must study the molecules of life. Although a callow student might take Lehninger's word for it, a dispassionate observer would look for evidence of evolution's importance to the study of biochemistry. An excellent place to start is the book's index.
Lehninger provided a very detailed index in his book to help students readily find information. Many topics in the index have multiple entries, because they must be considered in various contexts. For example ribosomes have 21 entries in the index of Lehninger's first edition; photosynthesis has 26 entries; the bacterium e. coli has 42 entries; and under "proteins" are entered 70 references. In all, there are nearly 6,000 entries in the index, but only two under the heading of evolution under the heading of "evolution." The first citation is in a discussion of the sequences of proteins; as discussed earlier, however, all those sequence data can be used to infer relationships, that cannot be used to determine how a complex biochemical structure originated. Lehninger's second reference is to a chapter on the origin of life in which he discusses proteinoids and other topics that have not stood the test of time.
With just two citations out of 6,000, Lehninger's teacherly advice to his students concerning the importance of evolution to the students is belied by his index. In it Lehninger included virtually everything of relevance to biochemistry. Apparently, though, evolution is rarely a relevant topic.
Lehninger published a new edition of his text in 1982; its index contains just two references to evolution out of 7,000 entries. After Lehninger died in 1986 Michael Cox and David Nelson of the University of Wisconsin updated and rewrote the 1982 text. In the preface the new authors include the following under a list of goals:
To project a clear and repeated emphasis on major themes, especially those relating to evolution, thermodynamics, regulation, and the relationship between structure and function.
Indeed, in the index of the new edition, there are 22 references to evolution out of a total of 8,000, an increase of more than tenfold from the last edition. But when we get past origin-of-life chemistry and sequence comparisons (the two references in Lehninger's earlier text), we find that the new edition uses the word evolution as a wand to wave over mysteries. For example, one citation is to "evolution, adaptation of sperm whales." When we flip to the indicated page, we learn that sperm whale have several tons of oil in their heads which becomes more dense at colder temperatures. This allows the whale to match the density of the water at the great depths where it often dives and so swim more easily. After describing the whale the textbook remarks, "Thus we see in the sperm whale a remarkable anatomical and biochemical adaptation, perfected by evolution." But that single line is all that's said! The whale is stamped "perfected by evolution," and everybody goes home. The authors make no attempt to explain how the sperm whale came to have the structure it has. Nothing else is said!!!!
Point being, do not come off as if the "Skeptics Society" has more to offer, that hasn't already been stated!!!! Evolution has much to offer in the sciences, but Evolutionary theory is incomplete, and that is just being honest!!!!" [/B]
Too much typing! I failed to mention, the last few paragraphs were taken directly from the book, "Darwin's Black Box, authored by Michael Behe." Obviously, that is not the central theme behind this views. The excerpt, was taken from chapter 9 entitled, "What Does the Box Tell Us: Publish or Perish," on pages 180 through 181.
Eh, I offered a website that had some pertinent discussion and articles. No need to criticize me, or is posting relevant material not encouraged these days?
馃檮
Anyway, a more proactive approach:
Questions For Ushome.
馃槃
1. How does God intervene in a physical, causal manner, that affects the evolutionary process?
2. Since it would need to be physical and is thus observable, how do we test for this intervention?
3. What evidence is there to support such intervention?
4. How does your theory account for macrocosmic changes in species?
5. Does invalidating one small aspect of a large, complex theory invalidate the whole theory? If so, why?
...I'll be honest and say I'm not expecting to be wowed with your answers (nor do I expect a response at all, given your track record). Mainly I'm just curious to see what you say when you aren't attacking evolution but have to present arguments for your own theory. Should be a refreshing change of pace from the umpteenth iteration of the "HA! No macroevoultion!" argument. Evolution has produced spades of evidence and processes by which these things take place. So far, to my knowledge, ID has zero.
No Bible verses. Actual science. Go!
Evolution has much to offer in the sciences, but Evolutionary theory is incomplete, and that is just being honest!!!!"
evolutionary theory is only incomplete in 2 aspects...that is doesn't explain the initial origin of life (which it has never claimed to do) and it doesn't show all transition species
Intelligent design on the other hand uses spurious analogies about clock makers...the fact remains that if you want to add scientifically viable information about intelligent design....then you have to have some for of evidence directly for a designer....and we all know there is no such evidence
same with creationism...if you claim that God created mankind...then you have to provide evidence for the existence of God
merely attacking the ever decreasing holes in evolutionary theory, which is amassing evidence continually in it's favour, is essentially pointless because, as we all know, you cant prove one theory merely by attempting to discredit another
as for Ben Stein..he was tacked onto this movie to try and give some Jewish credibility to the ridiculous concentration camp scenes in the film as if the world would think..."mmm...well he's Jewish...we better not offend him by telling him his holocaust analogy is complete and total bullshit"
Originally posted by ushomefree
Too much typing! I failed to mention, the last few paragraphs were taken directly from the book, "Darwin's Black Box, authored by Michael Behe." Obviously, that is not the central theme behind this views. The excerpt, was taken from chapter 9 entitled, "What Does the Box Tell Us: Publish or Perish," on pages 180 through 181.
1. How does God intervene in a physical, causal manner, that affects the evolutionary process?
Man--in terms of my understanding--has no view, regarding God intervening in a physical, casual manner, that effects the evolutionary process! Man does have, however, Old and New Testament Scripture, presumably thwarted by God Himself. That, in your view (as well as mine in the context of this discussion), is based on faith. All I can offer is this:
Science proves... time and time again, both through documentation and observation data, that organisms have changed over "X" amount of time (in diversity); however, despite all wishful thinking, genetic mutation, and claims of Complexity Theory, all is limited in scope, Digi! You and I, not to mention the entire scientific world, cannot explain, account, or give examples of organisms developing into "new" organisms, however subtle (or expedient)! And let's not forget the origin of the first simple cell, which contain, by the way, dozens of molecular machines--all having complexity and/or similarities of man-made machines. This is absolutely fascinating!!! Point is, Natural Selection--a beautiful theory "in its time," is completely outdated. I'm sorry, but that is the case. As the media presents, not to mention pop-culture, Christians (and others of religious faith) are not the backbone of Intelligent Design; scientists presented the idea, both of religious and non-religious backgrounds! DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE!! Intelligent Design, is not some conspiracy to take over the world and/or scientific works.
2. Since it would need to be physical and is thus observable, how do we test for this intervention?
This questions is unwarranted, at least, almost completely, anyway! Why? Scientists are able to make assumptions/theories based on observational data, namely, the inner workings of the cell (and molecular machines within, carrying a host of duties: reproduction, cellular repair, transport of raw material/information, energetic processes and the like). The cell--and all functions within--are not a free lunch. In other words, Naturalists overlook the details--the example of the Whale for example. Most Naturalists mock the Creationist by saying, "Magic-man did it." Okay... whatever; but let us be honest. Both sides of the view have a piece of the puzzle, and that is all so-called "Creationist Whackos" are trying to make clear. In other words, let's put views/knowledge on the table. It is not a competition for the most superior view, as the media presents it! The media has made, not to mention other venues, a mockery of Intelligent Design regarding the educational system. Intelligent Design has been, for the most part, boiled down to Christian nut-bags attempting to preach the Bible in schools! This, is, absolutely not the case!!
3. What evidence is there to support such intervention?
As the majority of Astrophysicists--I assume would state--I make the following statement directed towards the birth of the cosmos. I use this example, because it is simplistic, and yet, powerful (at the same time)!
And here we go:
Mass, energy, space, and time--dimensionality in which we [human beings] live, is not possible via means of Evolutionary processes. Simply said, if mass exists... where do you put it, and when (?), and with what!? Mathematics, not to mention "logic," indicates that the Cosmos came into existence at one point in time, simultaneously! Subtract (or off-set) one of the following premises, the entire Cosmos becomes a fairy-tale. The Cosmos collapse, and we--you and I Digi--would not be having this discussion. Period.
If the reader--including you Digi--can render my appeal, as honest, than I congratulate you; honestly, this post contains "updated" scientific knowledge to the best of my ability. I am not here to deceive. Please... pretty please, give me a break. [UNDERSTAND, THAT I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE.]
Take care all! Not to throw Scripture in your face, but I think it has a powerful message. For me, it "compliments" science, not "determines" science! And the passage reads:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities鈥攈is eternal power and divine nature鈥攈ave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:2-21).
Originally posted by ushomefree
1. How does God intervene in a physical, causal manner, that affects the evolutionary process?Man--in terms of my understanding--has no view, regarding God intervening in a physical, casual manner, that effects the evolutionary process! Man does have, however, Old and New Testament Scripture, presumably thwarted by God Himself. That, in your view (as well as mine in the context of this discussion), is based on faith. All I can offer is this:
Science proves... time and time again, both through documentation and observation data, that organisms have changed over "X" amount of time (in diversity); however, despite all wishful thinking, genetic mutation, and claims of Complexity Theory, all is limited in scope, Digi! You and I, not to mention the entire scientific world, cannot explain, account, or give examples of organisms developing into "new" organisms, however subtle (or expedient)! And let's not forget the origin of the first simple cell, which contain, by the way, dozens of molecular machines--all having complexity and/or similarities of man-made machines. This is absolutely fascinating!!! Point is, Natural Selection--a beautiful theory "in its time," is completely outdated. I'm sorry, but that is the case. As the media presents, not to mention pop-culture, Christians (and others of religious faith) are not the backbone of Intelligent Design; scientists presented the idea, both of religious and non-religious backgrounds! DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE!! Intelligent Design, is not some conspiracy to take over the world and/or scientific works.
So basically,you don't know,and have to resort to Scripture to justify yourself?
Also,evolution easily accounts for new organisms...that's exactly what the process is. You've just ignored the countless times we've showed you such data.
And again, you've diverted attention away from the lack of explanation for your theory and taken to attacking the oher theory. I'm not surprised.
Originally posted by ushomefree
2. Since it would need to be physical and is thus observable, how do we test for this intervention?This questions is unwarranted, at least, almost completely, anyway! Why? Scientists are able to make assumptions/theories based on observational data, namely, the inner workings of the cell (and molecular machines within, carrying a host of duties: reproduction, cellular repair, transport of raw material/information, energetic processes and the like). The cell--and all functions within--are not a free lunch. In other words, Naturalists overlook the details--the example of the Whale for example. Most Naturalists mock the Creationist by saying, "Magic-man did it." Okay... whatever; but let us be honest. Both sides of the view have a piece of the puzzle, and that is all so-called "Creationist Whackos" are trying to make clear. In other words, let's put views/knowledge on the table. It is not a competition for the most superior view, as the media presents it! The media has made, not to mention other venues, a mockery of Intelligent Design regarding the educational system. Intelligent Design has been, for the most part, boiled down to Christian nut-bags attempting to preach the Bible in schools! This, is, absolutely not the case!!
The question is unwarranted?! Then how are we to test to see if your theory has ANY merit?
Also, you're very right in saying that scientists often draw conclusions from observational data. What you fail to mention is that the results we have match with the scientists conclusions, or we later develop the means to test the hypothesis in full. If neither of those things happen, the theory is discarded. So "observing" nature and declaring God the answer is only one possible thoery, and so far it has yet to be corroborated with evidence.
If you have a "piece of the puzzle" you have to say why. Attempting to knock down one thoery then inserting your own as the de facto solution doesn't work unless you back it with rational argument.
Originally posted by ushomefree
3. What evidence is there to support such intervention?As the majority of Astrophysicists--I assume would state--I make the following statement directed towards the birth of the cosmos. I use this example, because it is simplistic, and yet, powerful (at the same time)!
And here we go:
Mass, energy, space, and time--dimensionality in which we [human beings] live, is not possible via means of Evolutionary processes. Simply said, if mass exists... where do you put it, and when (?), and with what!? Mathematics, not to mention "logic," indicates that the Cosmos came into existence at one point in time, simultaneously! Subtract (or off-set) one of the following premises, the entire Cosmos becomes a fairy-tale. The Cosmos collapse, and we--you and I Digi--would not be having this discussion. Period.
If the reader--including you Digi--can render my appeal, as honest, than I congratulate you; honestly, this post contains "updated" scientific knowledge to the best of my ability. I am not here to deceive. Please... pretty please, give me a break. [UNDERSTAND, THAT I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE.]
Take care all! Not to throw Scripture in your face, but I think it has a powerful message. For me, it "compliments" science, not "determines" science! And the passage reads:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities鈥攈is eternal power and divine nature鈥攈ave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:2-21).
Scripture, as stated before, is an appeal to authority, not a logical argument. It means nothing.
And you make quite a few leaps here. Models of the universe exist that do not require outside intervention. Matter can and does get created rom nothing, as well as destroyed.
And there is mass, so we exist, so there's a God?! A Christian one, at that? Do you see the gigantic leap in logic. Matter, ergo Jesus. It's sloppy, at best. Delusional, at worst. And beyond all that, all you did was come dangerously close to the anthropic argument, and it of course did nothing to present any evidence that God intervenes in the evolutionary process.
Is there a reason I shouldn't consider you response a complete failure? Because at some I hope you realize that you can believe in ID if you want, you're free to do so, but your belief is based on faith, not evidence, because none exists.
Oh, and I'm not here to "argue" either. I present my side of the debate, as do you. You've insulted me repeatedly in the past, then haven't backed down from them, so I have little sympathy at your attempts to gain sympathy by pretending to be entirely benevolent here.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Bombs/missiles have killed thousands more people.
i thought that was the case, but didn't want to make the claim.
Though, with modern technology, it wouldn't surprise me if more people were killed in just the combat of ww1 and 2 (not the concentration camps) than in all the combat of previous wars...
Like, how many people would Napoleon have lost in his entire campaign? a million? lol, I could be grossly underestimating this though.
Originally posted by ushomefree
1. How does God intervene in a physical, causal manner, that affects the evolutionary process?Man--in terms of my understanding--has no view, regarding God intervening in a physical, casual manner, that effects the evolutionary process! Man does have, however, Old and New Testament Scripture, presumably thwarted by God Himself. That, in your view (as well as mine in the context of this discussion), is based on faith. All I can offer is this:
Science proves... time and time again, both through documentation and observation data, that organisms have changed over "X" amount of time (in diversity); however, despite all wishful thinking, genetic mutation, and claims of Complexity Theory, all is limited in scope, Digi! You and I, not to mention the entire scientific world, cannot explain, account, or give examples of organisms developing into "new" organisms, however subtle (or expedient)! And let's not forget the origin of the first simple cell, which contain, by the way, dozens of molecular machines--all having complexity and/or similarities of man-made machines. This is absolutely fascinating!!! Point is, Natural Selection--a beautiful theory "in its time," is completely outdated. I'm sorry, but that is the case. As the media presents, not to mention pop-culture, Christians (and others of religious faith) are not the backbone of Intelligent Design; scientists presented the idea, both of religious and non-religious backgrounds! DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE!! Intelligent Design, is not some conspiracy to take over the world and/or scientific works.
2. Since it would need to be physical and is thus observable, how do we test for this intervention?
This questions is unwarranted, at least, almost completely, anyway! Why? Scientists are able to make assumptions/theories based on observational data, namely, the inner workings of the cell (and molecular machines within, carrying a host of duties: reproduction, cellular repair, transport of raw material/information, energetic processes and the like). The cell--and all functions within--are not a free lunch. In other words, Naturalists overlook the details--the example of the Whale for example. Most Naturalists mock the Creationist by saying, "Magic-man did it." Okay... whatever; but let us be honest. Both sides of the view have a piece of the puzzle, and that is all so-called "Creationist Whackos" are trying to make clear. In other words, let's put views/knowledge on the table. It is not a competition for the most superior view, as the media presents it! The media has made, not to mention other venues, a mockery of Intelligent Design regarding the educational system. Intelligent Design has been, for the most part, boiled down to Christian nut-bags attempting to preach the Bible in schools! This, is, absolutely not the case!!
3. What evidence is there to support such intervention?
As the majority of Astrophysicists--I assume would state--I make the following statement directed towards the birth of the cosmos. I use this example, because it is simplistic, and yet, powerful (at the same time)!
And here we go:
Mass, energy, space, and time--dimensionality in which we [human beings] live, is not possible via means of Evolutionary processes. Simply said, if mass exists... where do you put it, and when (?), and with what!? Mathematics, not to mention "logic," indicates that the Cosmos came into existence at one point in time, simultaneously! Subtract (or off-set) one of the following premises, the entire Cosmos becomes a fairy-tale. The Cosmos collapse, and we--you and I Digi--would not be having this discussion. Period.
If the reader--including you Digi--can render my appeal, as honest, than I congratulate you; honestly, this post contains "updated" scientific knowledge to the best of my ability. I am not here to deceive. Please... pretty please, give me a break. [UNDERSTAND, THAT I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE.]
Take care all! Not to throw Scripture in your face, but I think it has a powerful message. For me, it "compliments" science, not "determines" science! And the passage reads:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities鈥攈is eternal power and divine nature鈥攈ave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:2-21).
once again an entire post about what evolution doesn't have to prove it rather than what intelligent design does
this is the "backbone" of intelligent design...spineless...ironically
Originally posted by jaden101
once again an entire post about what evolution doesn't have to prove it rather than what intelligent design doesthis is the "backbone" of intelligent design...spineless...ironically
That and big blue text. Big blue text wins every argument. If at first it seems that big blue text is not working, then just make the text bigger and bluer. You can also throw in some black text to make the blue text seem even bluer and bigger. 馃憜