Inteligent Design

[Minimalist]

Frank and Stan,

I respectfully disagree. I love arguing with people whose lives revolve around an old book written for the sole purpose of keeping ancient goat herders in line.

[Guest]

So it is clear that Arch just wants to argue and has little to offer.
Perhaps the rest of us should just ignore his posts

this is a typical response from those who can not provide any proof for what they have said. i posted the whole paragraph that said nothing but gobbly-gook. it didn't even have complete sentences in it nor did it have any references to back up its point, if you think that is proof,then stay away from college.

He's gonna be obtuse and ignore the facts given him so why bother.

there wasn't one proveable point in there. you are all hypocrites as you demand proof from everybody else but yourselves.

Prove evolution wrong!

read my posts,i have already done that. why don't you all answer the questions i posted in my original response? not one evolutionist has tried yet which tells me they are afraid to face the fact that they can not answer any question nor are able to because they do not have an answer.

Oh yeah and once again you skirt the issue by looking for flaws in the semantics or the lack of bibliography

i am not skirting the issue, i saw that it said nothing and posted the fact that i did not see his point. what did people do, instead of trying to explain it, they went on the personal attack. shows that you can not see it either.

it is laughable because you can not prove evolution thus you must attack. you are threatened by intelligent design, even with its weaknesses, because it has more facts on it side than evolution can ever hope to gain

from the article- Poll: Majority reject evolution (10/23/05)

15% of the people believe in evolution, 51% believe in creation the only way you feel you can get converts is to force it on them in the school classroom. you can't even be honest in your attempts to present your theory. you need a monopoly, scare tactics, ridicule and so on to achieve your goals. When you become honest and open-minded then you can attack me. at least i read your authors' material and compliment their work without calling it plagerized.

you can never prove evolution true because you move the evidence to what you want it to be, and not allow it to be what it is. then you accuse the religious of doing exactly the same thing you are which just undermines yourselves.

[stan]

To the self-proclaimed archeologist:

One reason not to respond to your questions is that they contain offensive
presuppostions.

Another reason is that it is a complete waste of time.

You say you are not computer dependent, but you seem to be
living on it these days.

People have tried diligently to explain themselves to you, but you keep
yelling like a spoiled child..."you did not! you did not?" Who wants to
communicate with such a person?

Here's a question for you: are you an archaeologist? Tell us about it, please.

[Guest]

One reason not to respond to your questions is that they contain offensive
presuppostions.

how were they offensive? in other words you can't answer them.

Another reason is that it is a complete waste of time.

how doyou expect me to take your questions seriously when you don't take mine that way? it tells me you are chicken and trying to find an excuse for not answering them.

Here's a question for you: are you an archaeologist? Tell us about it, please

sorry, but since i don't know you, i will keep my life private. a moniker is a moniker and not germane to the topic.

though if you look at the article posted by minimalist you will see that it is very incoherant and fails to make a valid point. but why, with all the quotes from renowned evolutionists available, would he stoop to deliver some poorly written piece of trash? that is very poor strategy and very poor defense.

[Guest]

Truth, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.

[Guest]

Truth, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder

there is a defining point in which separates truth from interpretation, thus there is one ultimate truth.

here is a tidbit concerning i.d./creation for your perusal:

1. Is this a theory? Well technically, yes and no. It can be a theory as no one was around to witness the act of creation and we can only assume by the evidence we see that it is true. No because it belongs to a religious faith and it is important to believe it if one wants to be in line with God.

2. Can we use biology? Yes. For the science of biology allows us to investigate the evidence that is found in both human and animal bodies. We can discover scientifically how things work and how they relate to the creation story. Thus evidence from the birthing method falls in line with what scripture says about re-production

3. Can we use chemistry? Yes. We have modern examples that have not changed since time began in which to compare present day findings with ancient ones. Contrary to evolution the chemical make-up of all living things has not changed thus we are able to make determinations without conjecture or guesswork.

4. Can we use history? Again, yes. There are innumerable ancient records, which have been preserved and describe the exact same methods and situations that take place in the modern age. The Hippocratic oath, which doctors today must take, comes from ancient times. There is no contradicting information when it concerns matters spoken about in the creation story.

5. Can we use physics? Yes, as we can see how physics describes the situations that keep the planets revolving around the sun and keeps humans and other living things from flying off into space. There are other examples, but I want to stay brief.

6. Are there any witnesses? Well yes and no. No one was present at the time of creation except the Trinity so eyewitnesses are hard to find. Yet if we look at the modern evidence, using science, we can see that everything takes place just as the creation story tells us.

7. What about time? The time frame is subjective as there is no specific timing noted in the Bible thus we must rely on our faith and the leading of the Holy Spirit to find out what is true. Do I believe Ussher is right? After reading his book, no, though he makes a good case. Do I believe evolutionists are right? No, because they fail to take into account any alternatives that are not only plausible but also credible. God could have made the earth fully matured indicating an age that is older than it really is.

8. Conclusion intelligent design is scientific, as it uses the sciences and other subjects to determine the truth and define the way things work. Everything that creationism/i.d. claims, is also very observable and we do not have to wait millions of years for any change. This fact alone disqualifies evolution as every claim by creationism, can be studied in the here and now except the initial act of creation but that holds true for evolution as well.

[Minimalist]

Conclusion intelligent design is scientific

Wow....too bad the judge threw it out, eh?

[Guest]

Wow....too bad the judge threw it out, eh

is that the best you can do? for someone who sets himself up as an authority, you certainly shoot blanks.

there is an evolution piece similar to that one and i may post it later. hopefully it will get a better reaction thatn that example.

[Minimalist]

You are making the assumption that your bible assertions of worthy of the time to retort.

ID is religion and has no place in our schools.

Keep it in your churches...along with your precious ten commandments... and we'll all get along fine. I don't give a shit what you believe as long as you don't try to shove it down my throat.

[Minimalist]

Here, Arch....


You can work yourself into a lather over this one.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... arwin.html

Dawkins admits to feeling frustrated that so many Americans appear to reject Darwin's theory of evolution in favor of the creationist concept that God created humans in their present form.

He said, "I know perfectly well that these people are not stupid but ignorant. Ignorance is no crime and it is easily cured by education. What annoys me is the religious groups who actively work to prevent scientific education. And it doesn't just annoy me. It annoys respectable theologians who worry that creationism besmirches the reputation of true religion."

[RK Awl-O'Gist]

I don't give a shit what you believe as long as you don't try to shove it down my throat.

But the same tenet doesn't seem to apply in reverse, from what I see.

[Guest]

I don't give a shit what you believe as long as you don't try to shove it down my throat.

as long as you do the same with your theories. evolution does not belong in the classroom either as it fails to meet the criteria for scientific status.

Dawkins admits to feeling frustrated that so many Americans appear to reject Darwin's theory of evolution in favor of the creationist concept that God created humans in their present form

why would he be frustrated? he can't prove evolution true nor does he have any evidence to back it up. after 100+ uears, and millions of artifacts, evolutionists still can not say that this is the way it happened. i think they have had enough time toprove their theory correct,yet they can not do so. they keep changing it and relying on conjecture instead of fact.

one thing you fail to realize is that since evolution is a non-thnking, non-feeling process, why would it sense the need to improve? why would it need sexual reproduction organs? things would continue to evolve without them? why would it conceive of things like sight and smell? it has no ability to apply thought to what it is doing and would not know that those things would be needed.

why would things get better? it has no sense of what would be needed in life, past or present. what about two arms and two legs? why would it develope those appendixes when it can not even be aware of their purpose?

why would evolution change or even have the capacity to change? it has no ability to think thus it would not recognize the need to improve or make adaptions and even if it did, how would it have the power to make those changes? it is a process, unable to conceptualize or consider, where would it get the power to make these adaptions? where would the power come from?

hopefully you can answer these questions sans excuses and personal attacks.

[Frank Harrist]

I don't give a shit what you believe as long as you don't try to shove it down my throat.

as long as you do the same with your theories. evolution does not belong in the classroom either as it fails to meet the criteria for scientific status.

Dawkins admits to feeling frustrated that so many Americans appear to reject Darwin's theory of evolution in favor of the creationist concept that God created humans in their present form

why would he be frustrated? he can't prove evolution true nor does he have any evidence to back it up. after 100+ uears, and millions of artifacts, evolutionists still can not say that this is the way it happened. i think they have had enough time toprove their theory correct,yet they can not do so. they keep changing it and relying on conjecture instead of fact.

one thing you fail to realize is that since evolution is a non-thnking, non-feeling process, why would it sense the need to improve? why would it need sexual reproduction organs? things would continue to evolve without them? why would it conceive of things like sight and smell? it has no ability to apply thought to what it is doing and would not know that those things would be needed.

why would things get better? it has no sense of what would be needed in life, past or present. what about two arms and two legs? why would it develope those appendixes when it can not even be aware of their purpose?

why would evolution change or even have the capacity to change? it has no ability to think thus it would not recognize the need to improve or make adaptions and even if it did, how would it have the power to make those changes? it is a process, unable to conceptualize or consider, where would it get the power to make these adaptions? where would the power come from?

hopefully you can answer these questions sans excuses and personal attacks.

Don't take this personally, but that post was mostly gibberish. The personification of evolution is silly and nonproductive. It's a process not a creature. It's not suppose to think. It takes generations to make noticeable progress.

[Tech]

Frank
Havn't you realised yet
It's a brick wall
Thats why I stopped posting replies

[Frank Harrist]

Frank
Havn't you realised yet
It's a brick wall
Thats why I stopped posting replies

I keep saying I'm done, but it's so frustrating that this guy refuses to accept things which disagree with his beliefs. I give up. Brick wall was exactly what I was thinking too.